Hi Nigel, Wasn't your ccNSO leader present at the meeting?(besides the screen shoot recognized those conflict and indicated some alternatives), its not right to say "anonymous leaders" because the NCUC leadership for instance have updated their community on the events so if you have not been briefed at the ccNSO level then you should rather ping your leadership and not cry foul of the entire process. As I already said...now that the consultation has happened its left to this group to decide whether they don't want it or not. If its not workable because most people will be leaving before Friday the 23rd then that may make a valid reason to reconsider (especially if those that will be absent have key roles to play). I will not comment on your last statement because I think I have addressed you respectfully as I still believe you deserve it (not everyone within this CCWG earns that by the way, I know ....doesn't). Regards On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Seun
Are you being serious?
I have ccNSO Council pre-meetings on Sunday, TechDay Monday, and the whole two days of ccNSO on Tuesday and Wednesday, culminating in the Council meeting.
I am told that some anonumous "leaders" have -- at the very last minute - made such major changes as to make my further participation almost impossible (since I would be so behind the curve after missing four days worth of "work".).
The "getting on a plane" comment is simple -- people are now starting to be in transit for ICANN. Travel arrangements have already been made and may be unchangeable for some.
This is downright disrespectful.
On 13/10/15 11:02, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
For some of us, flying is not the important part of an ICANN Meeting.
el
On 2015-10-13 11:55, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello People,
There is no violation of process here, lets be realistic, its important to interact with the community as much as possible in Dublin and if the Co-Chairs have been able to get some more time slots through their interactions with the rightful owners of the spaces (SO/AC leaders), I think it should be a good news for us. Noting in the normal agenda of the CCWG has changed, in that the long f2f meeting still holds on Friday and the other slots does not extend beyond the normal ICANN meeting days so i don't see how that affects anyone getting on plane.
I don't think its within the CCWG's charter to secure normal SO/AC time-slots without consulting with them first. Now that the consultation has happened its left to this group to decide whether they don't want it or not.
Regards
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
Colleagues
I strongly object to this behind-the-scenes way of working.
Can you please list (a) the "AC/SO leaders" and the powers they have in the Charter to do this.
This appears to be to be DELIBERATELY exclusionary. Many of us participatns have already got committments for most of this five day long meeting.
It is ENTIRELY UNACCEPTABLE to make such a decision as people are already getting on aeroplanes.
I wish to invoke the Reconsideration procedure, please.
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!