[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
Chartier, Mike S
mike.s.chartier at intel.com
Tue Dec 29 20:50:14 UTC 2015
Alan,
Can you point out where the Charter gives voting rights to members? The relevant text below seems to say just the opposite.
In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>; avri at acm.org
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
I read the "they" as being the formally appointed CCWG Members, to whom the charter gives voting rights.
Alan
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On December 29, 2015 1:26:44 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier at intel.com<mailto:mike.s.chartier at intel.com>> wrote:
Avri,
I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "they should decide on those issues"?
Mike
On Dec 29, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I am not into rushing.
And certainly not into rushing for rushing sake.
But we have committed ourselves to getting the work done and we have a
world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. We have been
slipping our schedule. While the reasons for slipping the schedule may
be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't
slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do
our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and
continuing to do our best to get the work done. That is not done by
taking a
leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work
intensively.
I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends.
I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to
do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full
consensus. For example, if at the end of the intense work period in
January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on
those issues, we should document that fact, and move on.
avri
On 29-Dec-15 12:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Yes
Some people rush and rush.
In some of the working party meeting in the past there was about 10 participant since others could not afford that.
Multiplication if meetings and extension of their duration does not always have good resu
lts.
We need good plan,good preparation and advance working document and establishment of priorities
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Dec 2015, at 01:41, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we
want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016.
I also think 3hr meetings are ok. We might even consider one or more
of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with
people's work.
avri
On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Mathieu
Thank you for your suggestion
As I told you at various occ
ations,
human being mental capacity should
not be overloaded.
I have participated in many conference calls since years.
Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient
Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours
Regards
Kavouss
2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net%0b%20%3cmailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>>:
I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work
being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I
object to rushing things and designing schedules which are
unrealistic IMO.
-Jg
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>> on
behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>
Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m.<
br />
To: 'Accountability Cross Community'
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
Dear Colleagues,
In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to
inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls
per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input
received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests
for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this
frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.
As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and
topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the
meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.
Duration of the calls will also be exte
nded to
3 hours to allow
for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled
(and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.
Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of
the conference call calendar shortly.
We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy
holiday season for those of you who celebrate.
Best regards
Mathieu – Thomas - León
________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto: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/20151229/8843a2cf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list