[CCWG-ACCT] RES: IGF informal gatherings

Tue Nov 10 05:12:22 UTC 2015

Do not do this.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 9 Nov 2015, at 22:05, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> the three hour slot allocated is the time for which the room is available. That doesn’t mean we are actually meeting for three hours. If you had been present today you would have seen that there were only 9 or 10 of us at most. We didn’t discuss any substance but rather came to comment, for example, on Malcom’s concerns on mission statement, also Pedro anticipated he would be sending a mail to the list in regard to Stress Test 18 and that was about it. 
> 
> The gathering lasted no more that 30 minutes as everyone had previous commitments. Of course no remote participation was available as we are even trying to find out how those attending the IGF will even be able to join our call tomorrow.
> 
> So please, at least give those here at the IGF the benefit of doubt that we are not conspiring against anyone at any level or any topic.
> 
> We will try to meet again on Friday. No conspiracies happening there either.
> 
> 
> Saludos,
> 
> 
> León
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> León
> 
>> El 09/11/2015, a las 1:21 p.m., Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com> escribió:
>> 
>> 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!
>>>>> 
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151110/23a8eb5b/attachment-0001.html>