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