[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January/Meeting schedule

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

And I totally disagree.

Though, Jordan could be right if any of this was necessary and not needlessly forced on us by the Co-Chair(s) to get SOMETHING done no matter the outcome.

"Some intensity" doesn't do this farce justice, by the way, but if we really needed to do this then a weekend F2F with sufficient notice would be able to achieve more with less disruption.

But then again, that would be inclusive/participatory and we can't have something like that derail the agenda, now can we?

Or even having the plenum make decisions... The fewer the better, and especially not substantiative, "sensing the mood of the group" of course only about issues that fit into the plan.

If the idea really was to talk to each other we should talk to each other.

el



-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 25 Dec 2015, at 09:44, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> I completely agree with Jordan.
> 
> Given we have something to deliver, I expected to give more time than usual for CCWG in January.
> I see the additional calls suggested as a pragmatic way to help us make good progress.
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
>> On 2015/12/25 14:51, Jordan Carter wrote:
>> Thanks Brenda
>> 
>> All, while I understand that there is some intensity here, it is less of a
>> time commitment than travelling to and participating in a two day face to
>> face meeting. I much prefer the calls to another such in-person gathering.
>> 
>> It should become clear in the early calls what the mood of the group is in
>> respect of further changes to the proposal in response to the comments from
>> SOs/ACs and the public. The fewer changes, I guess, the less time....?
>> 
>> Regardless, we do have to take the time to come to as much consensus as we
>> can within the group about finalising the report. It won't happen without
>> us spending time talking with eachother!
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Jordan