Byron, there is nothing wrong with the meetings team and doing their best to make additional opportunities available for the community to engage on the transition. What needs to be questioned, however, are the motives of the CCWG Co-Chair(s) for (ab)using the above, entirely separate matter, to spring more (internal) CCWG meetings on the CCWG members (and CCWG participants) which then, predictably, clash with other activities. They do stuff like this all the time. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 13 Oct 2015, at 17:53, Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
To clarify the current situation and end any potential speculation, this is the current situation as far as I know it.
ICANN, based on feedback, is attempting to provide additional sessions on ICANN Accountability in Dublin. As such, yesterday, they convened a meeting of AC and SO Chairs, Stakeholder Groups, Constituency and RALO Chairs, as well as the CWG and CCWG Chairs to discuss possible scheduling and logistics options. A number of options were discussed that ranged from quite intrusive on the existing schedule to minimally invasive to no change at all.
As you can imagine given the broad range of participants on the call, there were a range of opinions. As Chair of the ccNSO I spoke against the options that intruded on our Constituency days, but in the spirit of cooperation with other communities as well as a desire to create as many opportunities as possible for our ccTLD colleagues to engage in this important Accountability discussion, I was generally favourable to providing more chances for this dialogue to happen.
I thought Jordan Carter (ccNSO member of the CCWG) summed up the current status quite well in his latest blog https://internetnz.nz/blog/hopes-dublin
" As we count down the days to Dublin, let’s recommit ourselves to building an accountability settlement that works. Let’s remind ourselves that consensus and being flexible isn’t about “losing” anything and doesn’t have to be about second-bests."
And if that includes some basic scheduling flexibility in an attempt to provide additional opportunities for dialogue and understanding on ICANN Accountability then I suggest that our ccTLD community would be well served by showing that flexibility.
Best regards, Byron
-----Original Message----- From: cctldworld-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cctldworld-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: October-13-15 10:25 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; directors@omadhina.net; ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldworld@icann.org Subject: Re: [Cctldworld] [CCWG-ACCT] Dublin schedule changes and work plan
I am not speculating about HOW it happened.
The issue is what happened and perhaps why. And at least for the latter the how becomes "interesting".
At the moment it looks like we were told, today, that we'll be having us a 5-Day CCWG meeting clashing with mainly everything, in particular Transition related activities of at least the ccNSO, ie it's Plan-D :-)-O
Hence, and because I can't post the ccNSO Council, I'll cc the lists.
greetings, el
On 2015-10-13 16:01, Greg Shatan wrote: The speculation in this thread about how this decision was arrived at is incorrect.
ICANN developed a plan with 3 options (A = no disruption, B = moderate disruption, C = significant disruption) for changing the ICANN54 schedule to add more time for Accountability-related meetings. This was not requested (as far as I know) by the CCWG Co-Chairs and certainly not by the AC/SO leaders. As far as I know, the impetus for this came from within ICANN. (The AC/SO leaders are the Chairs of each AC, SO, Stakeholder Group, Constituency and RALO.) The Chairs were given several days in which to confer with the stakeholders they represent in order to assess which option(s) they might find acceptable.
After that, the call Mathieu mentioned took place. In addition to AC/SO/SG/C/RALO Chairs, the call included the co-chairs of the CCWG, CWG and ICG and members of ICANN staff.
Greg
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Well,
I am an Observer to the ccNSO's Program Comittee. As such, I have indeed observed that Transition related activities take up a significant amount of the time of the two days of the ccNSO meeting.
So James' statement, below, when read in itself, without context, is not false.
But, it has nothing to do with springing today's surprise which would, in fact, make it worse, because these related events clashing.
greetings, el
On 2015-10-13 12:45, James Gannon wrote: I’m not Mathieu but I know that the ACSO leadership were involved as changing the ICNN54 schedule to have a greater focus on CCWG activities required a change in the scheduled events for each of the Acs and Sos, so there will be items removed from the current schedule in order to free up spaces for the CCWG to be attended by members and participants from the various parts of the community.
-jg [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Cctldworld mailing list Cctldworld@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld