[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

[Nigel Roberts]

I'm very personally in the same boat.

I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the 
nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point 
of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation.

I'm sure others are in this boat with me ...

On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won’t be
> able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same
> boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as
> soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have
> missed it.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>> On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,
>>
>> Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to
>> schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.
>>
>> Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was
>> discussed during that call
>> (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key
>> take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying
>> subgroups.
>>
>> While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the
>> timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize
>> our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the
>> comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours
>> of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues
>> that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand
>> concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.
>>
>> We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough
>> analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best
>> use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven
>> by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and
>> find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can
>> do.
>>
>> If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive
>> days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware
>> of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much
>> as possible.
>>
>> As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73,
>> we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on
>> January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and
>> suggestions.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Leon, Thomas & Mathieu
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>