Disagree.
There are formal requirements for participating in the CCWG. Members notify the secretariat. They must have a SOI on file. They are then listed as a participant on our website with links to their SOI. It's a minimal requirement, but a necessary one if we are to be a truly responsive and transparent organisation.
Part of what's going on here is a bit of a culture class, between the old backscratching 'we all know each other' world of internet governance and, as Avri correctly put it, the more "formalistic" approach. This is not a hobby, it is a multimillion-dollar international corporation. Fadi did a fantastic job of professionalising the management of this company. If this corporation is to be granted independence the community needs to make similar progress.
There are rules and procedures and they need to be respected. If not, next poll you can expect me to invite 1,500 of my nearest and dearest Facebook friends to the meeting. Actually, no, because I respect the process too much to do that but if the stakes are high enough eventually someone will. Then what?
Best,
Ed Morris
From: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:05 PM
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Poll results
Dear All,
Once again ,some distinguished colleagues started to open another heavy and extensive correspondence in regard with " participants" .Who ever attending a call and is not formal Member appointed by chatering organizations is PARTICIPANT.
Dear Co-Chair pls rule out such an unneccessary discussions
Regards
Kavouss