[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Dec 29 21:18:06 UTC 2015 

I was using "vote" implying to determine a level of consensus.  The critical part is that it is a process involving Members (but not participants).
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 29, 2015 3:50:14 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier at intel.com> wrote:
>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/20151229/49760e2c/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list