[CCWG-ACCT] Suggested change in working dynamics

[Seun Ojedeji]

Good idea and I like to add my +1 on this as well. A few minor comments:

1. From your mail, the use of the word "group" is a little bit confusing. I
hope you are referring to group of topics and then the group to approve is
the CCWG. I will be surprised if you have already grouped the topics and
members as I think group membership call should happen after approval of
the "topic grouping working method" by the CCWG.

2. I suggest that the groups be as few as possible. However the topics can
be more and each group could take 2 related topics, for continuity and
effectiveness.

3. I expect that the groups principle will be bent on openness and
transparency. i.e meetings will be open for observers to join in,
schedules/transcripts will be posted and shared to the larger group (at
least to those who opt to receive)

4. I suggest that the group monthly reporting requirement to the CCWG be as
flexible as possible and be staggered in a manner that ensures the CCWG
receives at least 1 but at most 2 reports weekly from one of the groups.
That way, there would be ample time to read through and provide
comments/suggestions to the group's work. Having all the reports come in at
the end of the month could mean some reports may not be read by some CCWG
participants.

Finally, I like to reiterate my commandment of the reasoning behind this
working method. Unfortunately I won't be joining the CCWG meeting today (or
may be late), but I wish you a fruitful deliberation. On a very light note,
as the deliberations happen please remember that a chartering organisation
already approved the work of WS1, so we should be talking about its
implementation as much as possible and not modifications ;-).

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 3 Mar 2016 21:49, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Now that our WS1 phase is approaching conclusion we would like to suggest
> a change in dynamics of our work. We acknowledge that the volume of calls
> and email exchange during this first phase was exhaustive and we want to
> thank you and recognize all for your understanding and commitment.
>
> What we want to propose for WS2 is a more distributed working method in
> order to leverage each of the member / participants skills while making the
> best use of everyone’s time.
>
> A possible approach, to be discussed in our Marrakech meeting, is to
> divide the work on the issues to be developed as part of WS2 into small
> groups that would be tasked to develop a working plan for each of the
> groups. These working plans would be presented to the CCWG plenary for
> discussion and approval. Once the group has approved the different
> working plans, including a comprehensive list of resources that would
> involve carrying out each group’s work, each group will begin their work
> and be responsible for scheduling their meetings and updating the CCWG on a
> monthly basis. Working plans for each group should consider the use of
> technology in order to foster inclusive participation from the wider
> community and to diminish cost of carrying each group’s work.
>
> Our role as Co-Chairs would evolve to continue to provide facilitation
> assistance where needed and coordinate interaction between the various
> groups, the CCWG at large and ICANN Staff and Board.
>
> We look forward to this new phase in our work and welcome your thoughts on
> this suggested way forward during our session tomorrow.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Thomas, Mathieu and León
> CCWG Co-Chairs
> Saludos,
>
>
>
> 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/20160304/7e4394b1/attachment.html>