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

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 12:00:30 UTC 2014


Hi Keith,

thanks for this proposal, I think that is good practice to ensure that we
involve everybody and give time for people to think. I guess that in
addition to a "second reading" during next call to confirm decision ,
further alternative would be to check the consensus within 2 or 3 days
after the meeting and found if there is any objection (acknowledging that
we may extend such period if the call happen in Friday). I am not worried
about risk of slowing the progress since I see that we are getting more
traffic now in the mailing list and we should keep such activity.

for the triple rotation, I personally prefer such option and I found that
worked for me and can be much fair than just a double rotation.
we have a duty to be inclusive as much as possible.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2014/1/19 Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz>

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140120/90bf3355/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list