Dear Co-Chairs, besides that Tijani and (more so) I have in the past expressed concern about the pace, and hence the quality of our deliberations previously, I am now in the enjoyable position of being able to inquire through the Co-Chairs, when Tijani will start figuring out the rationale behind these "decisions" ostensibly made by the Co-Chairs. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On May 28, 2015, at 21:42, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Will it be productive with half of the members??????
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA [...] p -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kavouss Arasteh Envoyé : jeudi 28 mai 2015 15:37 À : Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc : Lisse Eberhard; Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] proposed F2F meeting of CCWG
Dear Co-Chair We need to have at least half if the members plus Liaisons Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 May 2015, at 12:03, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Adam,
I suggest Windhoek :-)-O but if it has to be Europe, Amsterdam, London, Brussels and Paris in that order would come to mind.
The proposed week is much too early and this is caused by the failing methodology of the Co-Chairs subordinating quality of work to their self imposed, absolutely unnecessary deadline.
So I object.
But as I will be ignored as usual, can we have it we at least have it a week later and arrange it with the arrival date on Sunday so one can depart Tuesday evening?
The below proposed schedule will destroy a full week of work (for those of us who have to work for a living).
el
On 2015-05-28 10:25 , Adam Peake wrote: Hi everyone,
The co-chairs suggest we hold a face-to-face meeting to prepare the second public comment proposal. The expected launch of the second public comment is 31 July (for 40 days). We suggest the face-to-face meeting should be held with the target arrival date 20 July, meeting 21-22 July.
This is close to the Buenos Aires meeting, more travel will be a significant commitment for you all, but this face-to-face is felt necessary to prepare the next public comment period.
Location: suggest a European hub city. We would prefer diversity of a new location, but given the short time available to make the necessary reservations, and to make travel as easy as possible for the majority of CCWG colleagues, a location in Europe seems the best option at this time.
Usual travel support will be provided for CCWG appointed members and liaisons.
Remote access will be available for those who cannot attend.
Apologies, the recommended dates overlap with IETF#93, July 19-24, 2015.
Thank you.
Adam
[...]