What Are the Criteria for Process-Oriented Decision-Making in the CCWG
Dear Co-Chairs I wonder if you can enlighten me. I have read the Charter of CCWG-A quite carefully, and it is silent on most matters of pure process, presumably giving the co-chairs significant discretion regarding things like the timing of meetings and phone calls, etc. Perhaps you could share with me, and the group, the metric you use for establishing the suitability of a proposed way forward? I ask only because there has been significant (at least in volume and depth of feeling) objection to the proposed 8 calls @ 3 hours/call for the month of January. Some of have suggested a FTF meeting instead; others have suggested a development of process options approach. Others (me included) have suggested that so rushed a process is exclusionary and calls into question the substantive output that may result. So that I might better understand how you make decision, I was hoping you could tell me (us?) all: How do the co-chairs account for these objections and determine a way forward? What is your process and what are the evaluation criteria you are using? Thanks much, Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>
They read what you write, and do what they want. On 28/12/15 14:13, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs
I wonder if you can enlighten me. I have read the Charter of CCWG-A quite carefully, and it is silent on most matters of pure process, presumably giving the co-chairs significant discretion regarding things like the timing of meetings and phone calls, etc.
Perhaps you could share with me, and the group, the metric you use for establishing the suitability of a proposed way forward? I ask only because there has been significant (at least in volume and depth of feeling) objection to the proposed 8 calls @ 3 hours/call for the month of January. Some of have suggested a FTF meeting instead; others have suggested a development of process options approach. Others (me included) have suggested that so rushed a process is exclusionary and calls into question the substantive output that may result.
So that I might better understand how you make decision, I was hoping you could tell me (us?) all: How do the co-chairs account for these objections and determine a way forward? What is your process and what are the evaluation criteria you are using?
Thanks much,
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (2)
-
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig