Becky, while in transit... I agree, but... :-)-O We have (broad) Consensus on a report, and have put it out for Public Comment. So we will now take the comments and apply them to the report. That will be subject to a Consensus Call (if necessary) and another round of Public Comment, if necessary. We also hear that members who did not object against the report now wish to do so, or rather to individual sections. My view is that that train has left the station. But, once we have decided what we want, we'll finalize it, send it to the Board and move on to Work Stream 2. If the Board doesn't like it, well, tough luck, they can communicate to the NTIA whatever they want, but not as what the Community wants. If it needs more time, Mr Strickling can extend the contract so we can figures this stuff out in an orderly, thorough and deliberate manner. I fault our Co-Chairs, not only for the chaotic conduct of the meeting (and the Board call) but also for their inept running of the CCWG, per se. We hear the same arguments again and again and again. We do not progress. The break-out sessions were perhaps a step in the right direction (even though I am personally not a friend of break-out session, and they did give Cheryl a forum to provide light amusement), but the 2 minute sound bites, closing the speakers list, and then moving to the next agenda is not going to achieve anything. As I said on Friday, we need to focus on one issue at a time, advance it to finalization, even if it takes a while, and then be done with it. And I mean done. As in DONE. We are a diverse group and our Co-Chairs are unable to get comprises going within the group, which they substitute by pushing what they perceive as having gained traction. That makes it necessary to have Consensus Calls at the end of a topic and move on. What I also think is extremely unhelpful is that we do not differ between members and participants. Sebastien alluded to this in Paris, and I agree that for example a seating arrangement will be helpful during F2F. But with regards to the blinking, we don't need the transition, the Board does. We need an orderly transition, if a transition takes place. So we need to stiffen stiffen the member's back bone and if we don't like the Board proposal, reject it. And move on. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 27 Sep 2015, at 13:01, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I agree but we need to keep in mind that the CCWG cannot speak unilaterally for the community. To the extent we move off the (substantial) portion of the draft proposal that has consensus support, and to the extent we introduce new solutions in those areas where consensus may not be fully formed, we must go back to the community. The Board needs to understand and respect that.
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 1:22 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Road to Dublin....
Hello Keith,
I support your suggestions below. In particular points 4 and 5 below.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
FYI, as I said during today’s F2F meeting in Los Angeles:
As we take stock and look ahead to the coming weeks and the road to Dublin, here are my thoughts:
1. We need to continue our review and assessment of all public comments from the second public comment period. We have an established process that must be followed. 2. From the public comments received, including the Board’s, we need to identify the areas of our proposal that require additional work, including further explanation and/or adjustment. 3. For the areas that require adjustment, we need to clearly show how the adjustments evolved from the public comments and discussions. This will be important to inform any follow-on proposal and public comment period. We need to show our work. This was made clear by Larry Strickling’s comments and recent blog post. 4. As part of that process, or in parallel, I think we should consider Ira Magaziner’s proposal to delegate some follow-on “solutioning” work to smaller groups. The public comment response to our second proposal has shown there’s a lot of work to be done, and as Ira and Larry both noted, time is getting short. 5. Everyone must be prepared to compromise to reach consensus, without compromising our well-established goals. This is true for the Board as much as it is for the CCWG and the community.
Regards, Keith
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community