[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Tue Dec 29 21:17:29 UTC 2015
Hi
I was referring to:
>
>
> In addition, the CCWG-Accountability will be open to any interested
> person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering
> organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the
> CCWG-Accountability, or may be self-appointed. Participants will be
> able to actively participate in and attend all CCWG-Accountability
> meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should there be a
> need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision
> will be limited to CCWG-Accountability members appointed by the
> chartering organizations.
>
>
>
true it does not say vote, it say decision. That is why I did not
specifically refer to a vote, but a decision by the members.
avri
On 29-Dec-15 15:50, Chartier, Mike S wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> Can you point out where the Charter gives voting rights
> to members? The relevant text below seems to say just the opposite.
>
> /In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the
> CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls
> should always make best efforts to involve all members (the
> CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be
> responsible for designating each position as having one of the
> following designations: /
>
> /a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
> identified by an absence of objection/
>
> /b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but
> most agree /
>
> /In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the
> submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the
> consensus view, shall be included in the report. /
>
> /In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is
> reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation.
> However, //care should be taken in using polls that they do not become
> votes//, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the
> poll questions or of the poll results.///
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:*Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2015 3:18 PM
> *To:* Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>; avri at acm.org
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
>
>
>
> I read the "they" as being the formally appointed CCWG Members, to
> whom the charter gives voting rights.
>
> Alan
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On December 29, 2015 1:26:44 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S"
> <mike.s.chartier at intel.com <mailto:mike.s.chartier at intel.com>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 resu
>
> lts.
> 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 <mailto: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 occ
>
> ations,
>
> 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
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net%0b%20%3cmailto: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
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>> on
> behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>
> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m.<
>
> br />
>
> To: 'Accountability Cross Community'
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto: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 exte
>
> nded 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>
> <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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto: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
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list