[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.na
Tue Dec 29 19:35:36 UTC 2015 

As I wrote before,

What does the one side say?

What does the other side hear?

What do both want to achieve?



Usually it is power/control which translates into a lot of things.

True Altruism is an Unamerican concept.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 29 Dec 2015, at 20:56, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> Yes ,
> 
> we have committed ourselves to getting the work done
> Quickly Done , badly done?
> and we have a world of people waiting for us to make and end of it.
> To witness a correct work agreed by everybody or a work even objected at the level of CCWG?
> 
>  We have been slipping our schedule.  While the reasons for slipping the schedule may
> be legitimate  (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't
> slipped on promises.
> 
> Promisses to whom? there is no deadline but just objectives
> 
>  We continue to slip.  I think this commits us to do
> our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and
> continuing to do our best to get the work done.
> 
> Yes, we have to go forward but not merely by dobbling the calls' number and their duration. We need to have a valid Schedule and valid work plan and review ,and if necessary revise our working method
> 
>  That is not done by
> taking a leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work
> intensively.
> 
> Focusing  on works intensively does not necerssirily means  8 calls each 3 hours in 24 days.without an overall agenda of the works and without working strategy and work plan
> 
>  I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends.
> 
> We have had in the past few 3 hours meeting/calls which was not efficient. No meeting lasts more than 1,30 mints thus there is a need to break.
> 
>  I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to
> do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full
> consensus.
> 
> Therte are several areas in which there is not full consensus at this stage. Moreover, reviewing ICANN Board's comments more divergence were created..After receiving public comments, situation may get worse.
> 
> 
>   For example, if at the end of the intense work period in
> January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on
> those issues,
> 
> Who should devicides on those issues?
> 
> we should document that fact, and move on.we should
> 
> Documentsing the divergence and move on what?
> 
> We need to understand the golden rule of negotiation,mutual  respect, mutual understanding and equality of rights
> Tks
> Kavouss
>  
> 
> 2015-12-29 19:26 GMT+01:00 Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>:
>> Avri,
>>    I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "they should decide on those issues"?
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> > On Dec 29, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am not into rushing.
>> > And certainly not into rushing for rushing sake.
>> >
>> > But we have committed ourselves to getting the work done and we have a
>> > world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. We have been
>> > slipping our schedule.  While the reasons for slipping the schedule may
>> > be legitimate  (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't
>> > slipped on promises. We continue to slip.  I think this commits us to do
>> > our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and
>> > continuing to do our best to get the work done.  That is not done by
>> > taking a leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work
>> > intensively.
>> >
>> > I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends.
>> >
>> > I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to
>> > do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full
>> > consensus.  For example, if at the end of the intense work period in
>> > January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on
>> > those issues, we should document that fact, and move on.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >> On 29-Dec-15 12:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> >> Yes
>> >> Some people rush and rush.
>> >> In some of the working party meeting in the past there was about 10 participant since others could not afford that.
>> >> Multiplication if meetings and extension of their duration does not always  have good results.
>> >> We need good plan,good preparation and advance working document and establishment of priorities
>> >> Kavousd
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >>> On 25 Dec 2015, at 01:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we
>> >>> want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also think 3hr meetings are ok.   We might even consider one or more
>> >>> of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with
>> >>> people's work.
>> >>>
>> >>> avri
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> >>>> Dear Mathieu
>> >>>> Thank you for your suggestion
>> >>>> As I told you at various occations, human being mental capacity should
>> >>>> not be overloaded.
>> >>>> I have participated in many conference calls since years.
>> >>>> Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient
>> >>>> Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours
>> >>>> Regards
>> >>>> Kavouss
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
>> >>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work
>> >>>>   being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I
>> >>>>   object to rushing things and designing schedules which are
>> >>>>   unrealistic IMO.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   -Jg
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> >>>>   <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on
>> >>>>   behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> >>>>   <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>> >>>>   Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m.
>> >>>>   To: 'Accountability Cross Community'
>> >>>>   <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> >>>>   <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>> >>>>   Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   Dear Colleagues,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to
>> >>>>   inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls
>> >>>>   per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input
>> >>>>   received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests
>> >>>>   for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this
>> >>>>   frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and
>> >>>>   topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the
>> >>>>   meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow
>> >>>>   for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled
>> >>>>   (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of
>> >>>>   the conference call calendar shortly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy
>> >>>>   holiday season for those of you who celebrate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   Best regards
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   Mathieu – Thomas - León
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   _______________________________________________
>> >>>>   Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>>>   Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >>>>   <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> >>>>   https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >>>
>> >>> ---
>> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151229/5029670a/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list