[CCWG-ACCT] work plan and next steps
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 17:09:10 UTC 2015
Tks for your efforts
Pls note that we should not copy any other group . Our task is different two killing intensive days in which the chair would not allow questions be raised as it has happened is counter productive
Yes we should send to public what we have but that should be clear on the point and objectives
Ambiguous and vague materials will mislead the public and wrongly commented as could be misinterpreted.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Apr 2015, at 18:56, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net> wrote:
> this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list.
> We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by
> - installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far
> - compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents
> - holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice.
> We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728).
> We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days.
> Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right.
> Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community’s feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible.
> We will provide you with further information shortly.
> Kind regards,
> León, Mathieu and Thomas
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community