Re: [CCWG-ACCT] June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs
Dear co-chairs, I am not sure that just adding an extra hour to the call would really help us to work with the comments in an effective and –if at all possible- efficient way. I sent the following suggesting to Jordan trough the WP1 list: I suggest that the first exercise that some of us as a sub-team do, is categorize the comments. Possible categories: comments on mechanisms, comments on powers, comments on (AoC in) bylaws etc. And that we then assign a category or multiple categories to subteams to do both the analysis and the initial thinking of a way forward. In this way, not all of us will have to go through all the comments, we can do a lot of work in a relatively short timespan and if the subteams present at the F2F sessions, those can be quite effective. How does that sound? Groet, Roelof From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: woensdag 20 mei 2015 17:19 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs On behalf of CCWG Cochairs Dear all, Following up on the suggestion made on call #33 that the full Group should review public comments received on a call, we would like to suggest dedicating the CCWG call scheduled for Tuesday, 9 June to this task. This call will be an opportunity for us to identify sections of the draft proposal where the community 1) is in agreement; 2) needs clarification; 3) has diverging opinions. To provide us with sufficient time to review all comments, we have decided to extend the call duration to three hours. Staff will adjust the calendar invite accordingly. As a reminder, public comments received to date can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... Thanks, Best regards Mathieu, Thomas, León
Dear Roelof, we will have considerable preparatory work done when the so called "public comment review tool“, a document in which all comments go, is populated. Avri suggested (rightfully) that the analysis of comments should not be done by subgroups, but by the whole group. We will do what we can in order to group comments by subject and identify duplicate comments so we use the CCWG’s time in the most efficient way. Ideally, we should not need the whole 3 hours, but we felt that we should make sure everyone is prepared we might need more than the usual 2 hours. Also, we thought this would be less of a burden for all than needing two calls for the exercise (although I caution that this might still be needed in case we get too many comments). Finally, please note the whole group will not find solutions to the comments, but go through them and allocate them to sub-groups where action needs to be taken. I hope this helps. Best, Thomas
Am 21.05.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>:
Dear co-chairs,
I am not sure that just adding an extra hour to the call would really help us to work with the comments in an effective and –if at all possible- efficient way.
I sent the following suggesting to Jordan trough the WP1 list:
I suggest that the first exercise that some of us as a sub-team do, is categorize the comments. Possible categories: comments on mechanisms, comments on powers, comments on (AoC in) bylaws etc. And that we then assign a category or multiple categories to subteams to do both the analysis and the initial thinking of a way forward. In this way, not all of us will have to go through all the comments, we can do a lot of work in a relatively short timespan and if the subteams present at the F2F sessions, those can be quite effective. How does that sound?
Groet,
Roelof
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: woensdag 20 mei 2015 17:19 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs
On behalf of CCWG Cochairs
Dear all,
Following up on the suggestion made on call #33 that the full Group should review public comments received on a call, we would like to suggest dedicating the CCWG call scheduled for Tuesday, 9 June to this task. This call will be an opportunity for us to identify sections of the draft proposal where the community 1) is in agreement; 2) needs clarification; 3) has diverging opinions. To provide us with sufficient time to review all comments, we have decided to extend the call duration to three hours. Staff will adjust the calendar invite accordingly. As a reminder, public comments received to date can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m... <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15>/
Thanks,
Best regards
Mathieu, Thomas, León _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, as you know I am all for decision making taking place in the plenum, and not in sub teams, but this response below sounds to me a little like Thomas is worried about loosing control over the (perhaps) many sub teams. Curioser and curioser... el On 2015-05-21 10:29 , Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Roelof, we will have considerable preparatory work done when the so called "public comment review tool“, a document in which all comments go, is populated.
Avri suggested (rightfully) that the analysis of comments should not be done by subgroups, but by the whole group.
We will do what we can in order to group comments by subject and identify duplicate comments so we use the CCWG’s time in the most efficient way.
Ideally, we should not need the whole 3 hours, but we felt that we should make sure everyone is prepared we might need more than the usual 2 hours. Also, we thought this would be less of a burden for all than needing two calls for the exercise (although I caution that this might still be needed in case we get too many comments).
Finally, please note the whole group will not find solutions to the comments, but go through them and allocate them to sub-groups where action needs to be taken.
I hope this helps.
Best, Thomas [...]
Dear Eberhard, what makes you believe that I am worried (which I am not)? I cannot find anything in my e-mail suggesting that. Maybe you can help me so I do not find your intervention as curious as I currently do. Thomas
Am 21.05.2015 um 11:40 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
as you know I am all for decision making taking place in the plenum, and not in sub teams, but this response below sounds to me a little like Thomas is worried about loosing control over the (perhaps) many sub teams.
Curioser and curioser...
el
On 2015-05-21 10:29 , Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Roelof, we will have considerable preparatory work done when the so called "public comment review tool“, a document in which all comments go, is populated.
Avri suggested (rightfully) that the analysis of comments should not be done by subgroups, but by the whole group.
We will do what we can in order to group comments by subject and identify duplicate comments so we use the CCWG’s time in the most efficient way.
Ideally, we should not need the whole 3 hours, but we felt that we should make sure everyone is prepared we might need more than the usual 2 hours. Also, we thought this would be less of a burden for all than needing two calls for the exercise (although I caution that this might still be needed in case we get too many comments).
Finally, please note the whole group will not find solutions to the comments, but go through them and allocate them to sub-groups where action needs to be taken.
I hope this helps.
Best, Thomas [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs Mathieu and Leon, Your colleague's response reminds me of the attached. greetings, el On 2015-05-21 10:49 , Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Eberhard, what makes you believe that I am worried (which I am not)? I cannot find anything in my e-mail suggesting that.
Maybe you can help me so I do not find your intervention as curious as I currently do.
Thomas
Am 21.05.2015 um 11:40 schrieb Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
as you know I am all for decision making taking place in the plenum, and not in sub teams, but this response below sounds to me a little like Thomas is worried about loosing control over the (perhaps) many sub teams.
Curioser and curioser...
el [...]
Possibly I am alone here, but I don’t share that opinion. Of course, if we receive only a handful of comments, that will work. But if we get a lot (which is what I hope), it probably won’t. And I don’t feel the need at all to be part of the analysis of all comments. I have more than enough trust and faith in my fellow members/participants to share the work between us Best, Roelof From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Date: donderdag 21 mei 2015 11:29 To: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Cc: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs Avri suggested (rightfully) that the analysis of comments should not be done by subgroups, but by the whole group.
Roelof, this makes sense to me, though, I would perhaps not determine the categories beforehand. greetings, el On 2015-05-21 10:23 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
Dear co-chairs,
I am not sure that just adding an extra hour to the call would really help us to work with the comments in an effective and –if at all possible- efficient way.
I sent the following suggesting to Jordan trough the WP1 list:
I suggest that the first exercise that some of us as a sub-team do, is categorize the comments. Possible categories: comments on mechanisms, comments on powers, comments on (AoC in) bylaws etc. And that we then assign a category or multiple categories to subteams to do both the analysis and the initial thinking of a way forward. In this way, not all of us will have to go through all the comments, we can do a lot of work in a relatively short timespan and if the subteams present at the F2F sessions, those can be quite effective. How does that sound?
Groet,
Roelof
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: woensdag 20 mei 2015 17:19 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] June 9 Call - On behalf of CCWG Cochairs
_On behalf of CCWG Cochairs_ _ _ Dear all,
Following up on the suggestion made on call #33 that the full Group should review public comments received on a call, we would like to suggest dedicating the CCWG call scheduled for Tuesday, 9 June to this task. This call will be an opportunity for us to identify sections of the draft proposal where the community 1) is in agreement; 2) needs clarification; 3) has diverging opinions. To provide us with sufficient time to review all comments, we have decided to extend the call duration to three hours. Staff will adjust the calendar invite accordingly. As a reminder, public comments received to date can be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04m...
Thanks,
Best regards
Mathieu, Thomas, León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (3)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Roelof Meijer -
Thomas Rickert