Good idea and I like to add my +1 on this as well. A few minor comments: 1. From your mail, the use of the word "group" is a little bit confusing. I hope you are referring to group of topics and then the group to approve is the CCWG. I will be surprised if you have already grouped the topics and members as I think group membership call should happen after approval of the "topic grouping working method" by the CCWG. 2. I suggest that the groups be as few as possible. However the topics can be more and each group could take 2 related topics, for continuity and effectiveness. 3. I expect that the groups principle will be bent on openness and transparency. i.e meetings will be open for observers to join in, schedules/transcripts will be posted and shared to the larger group (at least to those who opt to receive) 4. I suggest that the group monthly reporting requirement to the CCWG be as flexible as possible and be staggered in a manner that ensures the CCWG receives at least 1 but at most 2 reports weekly from one of the groups. That way, there would be ample time to read through and provide comments/suggestions to the group's work. Having all the reports come in at the end of the month could mean some reports may not be read by some CCWG participants. Finally, I like to reiterate my commandment of the reasoning behind this working method. Unfortunately I won't be joining the CCWG meeting today (or may be late), but I wish you a fruitful deliberation. On a very light note, as the deliberations happen please remember that a chartering organisation already approved the work of WS1, so we should be talking about its implementation as much as possible and not modifications ;-). Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Mar 2016 21:49, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
Now that our WS1 phase is approaching conclusion we would like to suggest a change in dynamics of our work. We acknowledge that the volume of calls and email exchange during this first phase was exhaustive and we want to thank you and recognize all for your understanding and commitment.
What we want to propose for WS2 is a more distributed working method in order to leverage each of the member / participants skills while making the best use of everyone’s time.
A possible approach, to be discussed in our Marrakech meeting, is to divide the work on the issues to be developed as part of WS2 into small groups that would be tasked to develop a working plan for each of the groups. These working plans would be presented to the CCWG plenary for discussion and approval. Once the group has approved the different working plans, including a comprehensive list of resources that would involve carrying out each group’s work, each group will begin their work and be responsible for scheduling their meetings and updating the CCWG on a monthly basis. Working plans for each group should consider the use of technology in order to foster inclusive participation from the wider community and to diminish cost of carrying each group’s work.
Our role as Co-Chairs would evolve to continue to provide facilitation assistance where needed and coordinate interaction between the various groups, the CCWG at large and ICANN Staff and Board.
We look forward to this new phase in our work and welcome your thoughts on this suggested way forward during our session tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Thomas, Mathieu and León CCWG Co-Chairs Saludos,
León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community