<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Seun<br>
<p dir="ltr">I think the main puzzle is how exactly will ICANN/Co-Chairs apportion funding to participants. What determines those who "constructively" contributes? Is it by leading the working parties, by number of mails written? Or by number of meetings attended? Or as you put it those who make public comments?</p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Those are pertinent and legitimate questions. If I may turn them around, what criteria in addition to these will SO/AC leadership use to verify evaluate travel support applications?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">If participants will be funded (which I am actually in support of), then perhaps doubling the travel slots for each SO/AC and letting them determine which of their participants attend is the better option at ensuring balance.</p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Also a constructive suggestion. I would only add that additional travel slots should not be created specifically to populate CCWG ranks so late in the day - this is an open group and applications should be evaluated on the basis of need and participation from existing participants.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Arun</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr"><br></p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On 15 Sep 2015 08:20, "Arun Sukumar" <<a href="mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in" target="_blank">arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><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>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">-<div>@<a href="http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar" target="_blank">arunmsukumar</a></div><div>Senior Fellow, <a href="http://www.ccgdelhi.org" target="_blank">Centre for Communication Governance</a></div><div>National Law University, New Delhi</div><div>Ph: +91-9871943272</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>