[CCWG-ACCT] Group Photo!

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.na
Mon Jul 20 11:46:16 UTC 2015

Dear Co-Chairs,

while I still believe that decision such as these are to be made by the CCWG plenum and not by the Co-Chairs, never mind on such short notice, and objected against the use of it in working meetings where we need members and participants to advance a topic, and it would in my view restrict the rights of appointed members and registered participants under the Charter.

I suggested akin to Roberts' Rules to only allow one intervention per participant and member. But as a decision to be made by the plenum.

I in fact modified my objection to a pragmatic model that every member and participant should be allowed to rise once on a topic and if a second intervention was sought the clock should be started.

In the end the clock showing 00:00:00 quite menacingly all the time helped :-)-O

I don't have so much issues  about its use in Public Fora where anyone can make statements which are noted but not always replied to immediately, or at all, in order to give a large number of individuals an opportunity (to hear themselves speak :-)-O). Though I do not like when they start shortening the time per intervention after a while.

Maybe we should do it if we have a Public Engagement Forum in Dublin, but we then should make it clear beforehand, and allocate the time available per topic, so we know how many interventions we can accommodate. 

2 presentations of 10 minutes allows 20 interventions per hour. So in a Public Engagement Forum of 2 hours we add 30 minutes for buffer and summaries. We could even begin exactly on time...


Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 09:13, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> Yes – probably one of the benefits of having a two day meeting is that people had time to get their views across on various matters both at the microphone and also during the breaks.
> When we have one hour phone calls – it can be much harder for everyone to convey all their ideas .   It is often better to combine a statement on a call with a more detailed follow up email.
> The meeting in Paris certainly felt very collaborative.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 4:58 AM
> To: Seun Ojedeji
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Group Photo!
> Hi Seun,
> we did not use the timer at all. Let me use the opportunity to thank the whole group (including yourself) for not having made it necessary to use it.
> Nobody tried to monopolize the microphone, but we had contributions by many giving a huge variety of views and that is exactly what we needed at this critical moment of our deliberations.
> Best,
> Thomas
> Am 18.07.2015 um 19:06 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
> Thanks for sharing the pictures Hillary,
> Great to see the faces of those present. Congratulation to the CCWG for the huge progress made.
> For all the sessions i joined i think the timer was not used (hope thats the case overall). Congratulation for that as well ;-)
> Cheers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150720/abe2d0c4/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list