RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to make clear that my suggestion to validate the WG member list was not 
intended to put anyone into a situation where they needed to justify their 
participation or for the WG or staff to have to make judgments as to who 
participated or not.  Rather, my intent was to allow those who may have 
intended to participate so they volunteered but later were unable to do so to 
ask that their name be removed. I myself have had to do that in cases where I 
was added to a WG because I was a Council officer but never really 
participated.  Also, participation doesn't only involve meetings; some are not 
able to attend meetings but may participate very actively via email or 
monitoring activity.

In the case of the RySG, there are a few names on the list for people who 
rarely if ever participated in the WG or even in RySG discussions of WG 
activities.  I thought they might want to have their name removed.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:41 AM
To: Brian Peck
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx; Erika Randall; Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG


I note that my lack of attendance at the teleconferences is reflected in the 
attendance percentage for the NCSG. While this statistic appears meaningless 
(as compared to something like "number of meetings at which the stakeholder 
group was represented), I also believe I gave my general regrets for the 
group's teleconferences but wanted to be added to the mailing list in order to 
follow on-list conversation.

Thanks,
--Wendy