[ccwg-internet-governance] Doodle poll to define call rotation: Double/Tripe

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Jan 19 00:44:23 UTC 2014


Hi,

I have used that second reading method in some groups in the past, 
including in the GNSO Council during the days of Task Forces / 
Committees of the Whole.

I thought it worked quite well for finding the consensus point without 
leaving anyone aside.  As a method, I think it has to be accompanied by 
announcement and hopefully discussion on the list during the intervening 
time.  Which of course was implicit in what you said.


I want to mention a problem with doodle polls for time setting (I 
realize that is not this poll).  Often we find out that the majority of 
the participants are located in one cluster of time zones, with a 
minority in others.  If we use majoritarian thinking,   the meetings 
still end up consistently at bad times for some.  If we use a doodle 
poll for the decision, I suggest we take the best times in each of the 
relevant geographical clusters.


avri


On 18-Jan-14 19:12, Keith Davidson wrote:
> Thanks very much Renate for organising this poll, and to the WG members
> for having consideration for those of us who live in unusual time zones.
>
> As an aside, one ICANN WG that I chair has for the past 5 years been
> meeting almost every 2 weeks on a triple rotation meeting time. As
> chair, I refuse to allow significant decisions to be made on the basis
> of a single call, so have a "second reading" on a next call to confirm
> earlier decisions, and if there is dissent on the second reading, then
> taking it forward to a third meeting. The massive benefit from this
> approach is that all WG members can exempt themselves from participating
> in the one out of three meetings that happens at a truly horrible time
> for them, and are not denied a voice in the decision making along the
> way. With all calls recorded and transcripts created, members can go
> back to review what the points of difference were on controversial
> issues etc.
>
> While this does potentially slow down the progress on topics a little,
> it does ensure a robustness of debate and a commitment to all
> participants being able to contribute. The outcome is usually a higher
> level of consensus and understanding of the issues.
>
> I have often thought this methodology could be adopted as a standard for
> larger WG's who's members are geographically widely dispersed.
>
> Cheers
>
> Keith
>
> On 17/01/2014 10:25 p.m., Renate DeWulf wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> One of the open action items was to define whether this ccwg would wish
>> to hold its weekly calls on a double or triple rotation.
>>
>> Please find hereunder the link to this poll.
>>
>> http://www.doodle.com/z4r372tn453ez349
>>
>> I will close the poll on Friday January 24^th .
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best,
>> Renate
>>
>> *Renate De Wulf*
>>
>> Executive Assistant
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>> Rond Point Schuman 6,
>>
>> 1st floor
>>
>> B-1040 Brussels
>>
>> Belgium
>>
>> Telephone: +32 2 894 7411
>>
>> Mobile: +32 479 40 07 44
>>
>> Fax: +32 2 280 1221
>>
>> Skype: renate.dewulf
>>
>> Email: renate.dewulf at icann.org <mailto:renate.dewulf at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list