All, this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list. We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by - installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far - compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents and - holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice. We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728>). We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days. Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right. Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community’s feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible. We will provide you with further information shortly. Kind regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
Thomas Tks for your efforts Pls note that we should not copy any other group . Our task is different two killing intensive days in which the chair would not allow questions be raised as it has happened is counter productive Yes we should send to public what we have but that should be clear on the point and objectives Ambiguous and vague materials will mislead the public and wrongly commented as could be misinterpreted. Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Apr 2015, at 18:56, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list.
We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by
- installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far
- compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents
and
- holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice.
We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728).
We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days.
Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right.
Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community’s feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible.
We will provide you with further information shortly.
Kind regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Thomas and the co-chairs. I support and respect the thinking behind this proposal, which I understand involves: - no new content being developed by Working Parties after Friday 17th midnight UTC - staff or co-chairs compiling the Draft Public Comment Report content from all the WPs and from the staff work done so far - this consolidated document being circulated on Monday - this consolidated document along with any other documents circulated BEFORE the Freeze being the main items for our calls next week including the intensive period - the unpleasant but necessary "intensive" series of calls on Thursday and Friday next week. I can confirm that WP1 is on track to have its content finalised for CCWG review by Friday midnight. thanks Jordan On 17 April 2015 at 04:56, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list.
We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by
- installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far
- compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents
and
- holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice.
We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728).
We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days.
Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right.
Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community's feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible.
We will provide you with further information shortly.
Kind regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Co-Chairs, then that was after the disgraceful spectacle of the Q&A or rather Interuptions & Shouting, when Thomas launched into a monologue kicking the meeting into overtime (I left after the allocated 2 hours due to a hard stop)? Hence it was not read twice. And, I object. el On 2015-04-16 17:56, Thomas Rickert wrote:
All, this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list.
We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by
- installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far
- compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents
and
- holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice.
We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728).
We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days.
Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right.
Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community’s feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible.
We will provide you with further information shortly.
Kind regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
- -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVMNe/AAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rQqQP/1VrCaDOAl9oo/3mche/T2RF mCWdQQMk97NBA7AUb+IdjVIBlM2YiNFQ4f9nZm155cnnLebroUQdh7bTW72KYV3J odH8U8RKm8PMZ8ak1L8OxIDq6wmORqA+3Fp39cn6lJz6czN25IRGnSUK4QyxwSZL P2gtF+5HJJIEDqAcOJ/ijjgwmBneGldmlzKUJtQGBJyxIhI0yCt9bWZ6gsnObh4/ tQG9HIoTbAYlM+nIaQ59ZzIz9TpHFkXm30y1XxwBgQaWk7Y5+thEuy01flZ3rer4 W+bSSv0rIY3jDY3zZHhCYtQhpx7RzPnzKsRYH5eDKUQJ8qK4rpXnU9zXi5R6l+Jp cmoKmpGQEhwgPY36vGuIfD9LkT4+5q5UXCRhIAPrOP5C9cagcZ0irKKCs99Gds0M 4n6zEXfQWszqDxIOdU4ElfN49yh7GK+P5fFoaXUOuI56RDCn2vAZIJk9e9+qTgq6 6JZ3xIs6j0daSXVtghdj0CfdKRVfhc7qJHtApp3/UqIlesSIElVcAN/kfELWSNfN O3T3SoL6qHuQzlezvTkAgpBtqpDcep2/1ZrYOXXGgwefZ+3ruZp3XO4v2F85JfvK 3RKpakORUNuLJKW7m+c7MVSOb58fNtDSSTHc8YfHByViPaE6e7D00F8TloACxooz ++YPbXPHkinJIKs+FgQl =N/QA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thomas I an generally in agreement with the suggested approach. The freeze period is I think, necessary if only to consolidate and make good sense of all the inputs as a quality control procedure. RD On Apr 16, 2015 12:57 PM, "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
All, this is to respond briefly to concerns that have been raised and questions that were asked on the mailing list.
We had suggested during the last call that we would adjust our approach to make it easier for the group to work and contribute to our discussion by
- installing a freeze period during which no updates to documents would be made to give the group time to go through and digest papers that have been produced so far
- compiling an interim version of the report as well as an inventory of all documents in one place to make it easier to find all of the latest documents
and
- holding two intense work days (following the example of the CWG, which has conducted such intense two work days already twice.
We intend to follow this approach as discussed during the call on Tuesday (see Notes and transcript here : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728).
We would like to keep the momentum and work on preliminary recommendations so that the group get the opportunity to have an informed discussion during the intense work days.
Later, we should conduct the public comment period together with executing an engagement plan. As some of you have mentioned, we need to get this right.
Even if our group reaches consensus, we need to ensure that there community consensus on our recommendations. This is why - in our view - it is imperative that we present what we have to the community and get feedback from the community whether we are on the right track or whether we need to adjust. Getting such input and also the community’s feedback on potential legal implementation models is one aspect of our efforts to be as inclusive as possible.
We will provide you with further information shortly.
Kind regards, León, Mathieu and Thomas
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Rudolph Daniel -
Thomas Rickert