<div dir="ltr">Hi, I couldn't sneak in this question in time before the last call ended, but:<div><br></div><div><div>Why are additional travel support requests for LA being routed through SO/AC leadership? Chartering organisations have had an opportunity to nominate fully funded members. If travel support requests are not many in number, surely they can be evaluated in a transparent manner by CCWG co-chairs, with results circulated in the working group mailing list? </div><div><br></div><div>I'm not entirely sure if handing it over to So/AC leadership -- who may or may not have tracked accountability discussions down to this crucial meeting -- is the most appropriate way to get diversity in perspectives. It is potentially unfair to those who are not affiliated to them, but active participants nevertheless.</div><div><br></div><div>The number of comments in the second period received from organisations that are not affiliated to So/ACs is indicative of active participation outside.</div><div><br></div><div>disclosure: i am interested in receiving additional travel support, and affiliated to NCUC</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Arun</div><div><br></div>--
</div></div>