[CCWG-ACCT] June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs

[Thomas Rickert]

Dear Roelof,
we will have considerable preparatory work done when the so called "public comment review tool“, a document in which all comments go, is populated.

Avri suggested (rightfully) that the analysis of comments should not be done by subgroups, but by the whole group.

We will do what we can in order to group comments by subject and identify duplicate comments so we use the CCWG’s time in the most efficient way.

Ideally, we should not need the whole 3 hours, but we felt that we should make sure everyone is prepared we might need more than the usual 2 hours. Also, we thought this would be less of a burden for all than needing two calls for the exercise (although I caution that this might still be needed in case we get too many comments).

Finally, please note the whole group will not find solutions to the comments, but go through them and allocate them to sub-groups where action needs to be taken.

I hope this helps.

Best,
Thomas

> Am 21.05.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>:
> 
> Dear co-chairs,
> 
> I am not sure that just adding an extra hour to the call would really help us to work with the comments in an effective and –if at all possible- efficient way.
> 
> I sent the following suggesting to Jordan trough the WP1 list:
> 
> I suggest that the first exercise that some of us as a sub-team do, is categorize the comments. Possible categories: comments on mechanisms, comments on powers, comments on (AoC in) bylaws etc. And that we then assign a category or multiple categories to subteams to do both the analysis and the initial thinking of a way forward. In this way, not all of us will have to go through all the comments, we can do a lot of work in a relatively short timespan and if the subteams present at the F2F sessions, those can be quite effective.
> How does that sound?
> 
> 
> Groet,
> 
> Roelof
> 
> From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>
> Date: woensdag 20 mei 2015 17:19
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs
> 
> On behalf of CCWG Cochairs
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Following up on the suggestion made on call #33 that the full Group should review public comments received on a call, we would like to suggest dedicating the CCWG call scheduled for Tuesday, 9 June to this task.
> This call will be an opportunity for us to identify sections of the draft proposal where the community 1) is in agreement; 2) needs clarification; 3) has diverging opinions.
> To provide us with sufficient time to review all comments, we have decided to extend the call duration to three hours. Staff will adjust the calendar invite accordingly.
> As a reminder, public comments received to date can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15 <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15>/
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150521/e9dbacc6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150521/e9dbacc6/signature.asc>