[CCWG-ACCT] RES: IGF informal gatherings

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

It's not the remote participation (only), it is the shot notice and
exclusion of the (appointed) members, participants and observers,
who can't make it.

It's intentional and can not be allowed.

el


On 2015-11-09 18:13 , Nigel Roberts wrote:
> The real issue is this.
> 
> If the meeting is as was originally described, two sessions at
> which substantive work was being done, then it is exclusionary,
> and remote participation should have been offered.
> 
> If it's just a bunch of WG denizens hanging out, then why schedule
> two three hour sessions.
> 
> The optics don't look good.
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/11/15 16:11, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>> Seun
>>
>> Two, three-hour sessions can in no way be described as 'informal',
>> whether there is beer there or not.
>>
>> Better to describe it as a meeting of a caucused subset of the WG.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/15 15:01, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> Any luck with remote participation details for this "informal" meeting?
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>

[...]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4218 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151109/8e00f078/smime-0001.p7s>