[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Meeting schedule was Re: Proposal to Extend CC2 Deadline

avri doria avri at apc.org
Tue May 2 02:47:25 UTC 2017


To the New gTTLD subsequent procedure PDP WG

At this point since the notes from Kavouss seem abusive to me, since my
motives have been attacked and since  I have been accused of trying to
prevent GAC participation, I have no choice other than to turn this
issue over to the Ombudsman.

The only other alternative I can think of is to accept the fact that I
am incapable of co-chairing this group and step down.  I am considering
this but will wait until the ombudsman has a chance to review the issue
and determine my culpability for the things I am being accused of.

Thanks and apologies

avri


On 01-May-17 20:40, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Avri,
> I  check the schedule of CCWG Accountability for the month of May and
> found that one Tuesday 16 May , they have Jurisdiction meeting at
> 05,00 UTC thus other Tuesday they do niot have any meeting at that time.
> I therefore request to be collaborative and change the timing of your
> General Meeting to 04,00 UTC and ask CCWG Jurisdiction to shift their
> meeting by Half an hour to start at 05,30 not to have any clash with
> your meeting .As they meet for only 60 minutes still they end by 06,30
> UTC at that only one meeting per night.
> If you insist , I interpret that this is an effort to EXCLUDE GAC TO
> ATTEND THE PDP.
> I will formally announce that to the responsible group.
> You and staff need to kindly work it out in consultation with Bernie.
> I insist on that.
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2017-05-01 20:59 GMT+02:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>>:
>
>     Dear Kavouss,
>
>     I have received heard your requests and seen your complaint to the
>     chairs of the GNSO and the GAC.
>
>     Staff reviewed our meeting time and found that 4 UTC was not possible,
>     especially for our full meeting as that is a 90 minute meeting that
>     would interfere with the WS2 meetings that are scheduled in the 5 UTC
>     time frame. We have been very careful to keep our scheduling out
>     of the
>     WS2 time tracks as that was one of the original concerns that
>     people had
>     in establishing our rotating scheduling. The other goal we had was
>     consistency in the rotating times at which we held meetings as much as
>     possible.  Finally the point was the sharing of discomfort among the
>     residents of various time frames which was accepted by the WG at the
>     beginning of this process.
>
>     At this point you are the only one with this specific request.  Should
>     there be a consensus in the group that we need to review and possibly
>     redo the rotating schedule of meetings, I will ask the staff to
>     help us
>     find a new solution that is acceptable to a consensus of the
>     participants in the WG.  I will ask that the issue be added as AOB to
>     our full meeting to find out whether there is consensus on the need to
>     reschedule our meetings.
>
>     Thank you
>
>     Avri
>
>
>     On 01-May-17 13:21, Arasteh wrote:
>     > Avri
>     > Once again, I reiterate-my position which was supported by many
>     European residents that the window of 03,00 UTC is a painful
>     window for meeting .
>     > I sincerely and respectfully request you to move it to 04,00 UTC
>     which does not make a big change for Asia Pacific people. Failure
>     to do that is a clear sign to exclude People from Europe to attend
>     > Regards
>     > Kavouss
>     >
>     > Sent from my iPhone
>     >
>     >> On 20 Apr 2017, at 00:18, avri doria <avri at apc.org
>     <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> I want to append a comment to this.  While I fully support the
>     >> extension, I want to encourage people to submit their comments
>     as soon
>     >> as they can.  As most of you know the sub teams are currently
>     working on
>     >> all these issues and the sooner they get input, the better. 
>     Everyone in
>     >> the leadership group is waiting with bated breath and is eager
>     to see
>     >> the answers that are ready.  Also want to note, that there are many
>     >> questions, and there is no barrier to submitting multiple responses
>     >> dealing the variety of questions.  Also those who submit early
>     will have
>     >> the opportunity for making further comments should they think
>     of new
>     >> elements to add to their answers.
>     >>
>     >> So please, though we are recommending an extension, please feel
>     free to
>     >> submit the work that is already ready.
>     >>
>     >> Thanks
>     >>
>     >> avri
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>> On 18-Apr-17 05:11, Jeff Neuman wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> All,
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Last week the Avri and I received a formal request from the
>     >>> Governmental Advisory Committee to “consider an extension of the
>     >>> deadline for public comments to the Community Comment 2 (CC2)
>     >>> questionnaire.”  In light of the extensive nature of the
>     questionnaire
>     >>> as well as the desire to get as many responses as possible,
>     Avri and I
>     >>> are inclined to agree to this request.  In order to be fair, we
>     >>> believe the extension should be applied to everyone, not just
>     the GAC.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Working backwards, it is our desire to have a summary of all
>     of the
>     >>> public comments to discuss at ICANN59 at the end of June.  The
>     >>> document deadline for that meeting is 15 business days prior
>     to the
>     >>> meeting (beginning of June).  In order to give staff some time to
>     >>> compile the summary in time for the document deadline, we are
>     >>> proposing *May 22, 2017* as the new date for comments to be
>     due.  This
>     >>> would be a 3 week extension for the entire community.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> I know this is asking for quick turnaround, but please let us
>     know by
>     >>> no later than *April 20^th *if you have any strong objections
>     to this
>     >>> proposal.  Otherwise, we will let the community know about the
>     >>> extension on April 21^st .
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> Best regards,
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>     >>>
>     >>> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
>     >>>
>     >>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>     >>>
>     >>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>     >>>
>     >>> E: _jeff.neuman at valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>
>     <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>>_or
>     >>> _jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>     <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>_
>     >>>
>     >>> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%2B1.703.635.7514>
>     >>>
>     >>> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%2B1.202.549.5079>
>     >>>
>     >>> @Jintlaw
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>     >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>     >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> ---
>     >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>     software.
>     >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>     >> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>     >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
>     >
>
>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list