All, first of all: Happy Holidays to all of you and Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate Christmas. The calls we are suggesting will at least in part be planned in a way so that we deal with different topics at announced times. We do not expect everyone to join every discussion on every topic. Kind regards, Thomas

Am 24.12.2015 um 12:58 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occations, human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss

2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO.

-Jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dear Colleagues,

In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.

As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.

Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.

Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly.

We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate.

Best regards

Mathieu – Thomas - León

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>

I fully support Mr Arasteh's position here. The existing requirement on Members and Participants is already onerous. Doubling it gives me the clear perception that this is I small, 4 person, organisation cannot afford the additional thousands of dollars in opporutnity cost even if we could find the time. Which we cannot. I will be making appropriately polite representations to the relevant public authorities. On 24/12/15 14:30, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Thomsa, Thank you very much for the answer I do not understand thethone by which you replied to those who described the defficiencies of having three hours of call to discuss the outstanding issues. Your authority and mandate is to organize the meeting to discuss issue with the general agreementof the people. Pklease kindly modify your tone and be kind with evrry body. You have always pushed more than what was practical . You have always rushed and in fact did use an unfriendly and intimidating language. We should collaborate with each other. There is no supermacy in the entire process. No one is allowed to command Pls come back to the workable and practical solution before creating unnecessary disputes within the CCWG. tKS kAVOUSS

2015-12-24 14:54 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>:

All, first of all:

Happy Holidays to all of you and Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate Christmas.

The calls we are suggesting will at least in part be planned in a way so that we deal with different topics at announced times. We do not expect everyone to join every discussion on every topic.

Kind regards, Thomas

...

Am 24.12.2015 um 12:58 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:

Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occations, human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss

2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>:

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO.

-Jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dear Colleagues,____

__ __

In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January. ____

__ __

As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly. ____

__ __

Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary. ____

__ __

Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly. ____

__ __

We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate.____

__ __

Best regards____

Mathieu – Thomas - León____

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear All, Once again the ICANN Process is or should be a democratic one. No one could impose his or her views on the others. Intensive 8 times each 3 hours call may not be efficient due to the fact that a) our experience of last two time three hours call is negative as the last hour was really boring ,b) there should be sufficient time to reflect and act on the actions requested7 agreed at each call and c) there should be a firm commitment from ICANN representative to actively participate in the discussion and negotiation manner and bring compromise proposals after each with a view to reach a general agreement on all comments A) from public and B)from ICANN. Once agreement reached, it is not expected that ICANN Board again make a counter proposal to NTIA when it submit the Final proposal to that Organization. Consequently: 1. We need to put the number of calls foreseen to be held in January and their corresponding duration to doodle reply .If the majority of commenters agree to 8 calls each 3 hours then we proceed if not the Co-Chair should examine the replies and act accordingly 2. Asking ICANN Board to a) designate it’s formally authorized representative(s) to discuss and negotiate with the CCWG on their concerns 3. It should be emphasized that ,if all concerns were discussed, negotiated and compromises were emerged, ICANN undertake not maker another surprise and commenting again on the compromise emerged when it submits CCWG proposal to NTIA due to the fact that either somebody is involved in the negotiations and respects the results, or CCWG does not take into account the ICANN Board’s proposals at all when it consider the public comments and then ICANN could send its comments to NIA on the final CCWG proposal. ICANN Board should opt for any of the two alternatives. We should close the Pandora BOX. Regards Kavouss . 2015-12-25 1:41 GMT+01:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:

Hi,

I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016.

I also think 3hr meetings are ok. We might even consider one or more of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with people's work.

avri

On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

...

Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occations, human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss

2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>:

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO.

-Jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dear Colleagues,

In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.

As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.

Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.

Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly.

We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate.

Best regards

Mathieu – Thomas - León

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hi, I am not into rushing. And certainly not into rushing for rushing sake. But we have committed ourselves to getting the work done and we have a world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. We have been slipping our schedule. While the reasons for slipping the schedule may be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and continuing to do our best to get the work done. That is not done by taking a leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work intensively. I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends. I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full consensus. For example, if at the end of the intense work period in January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on those issues, we should document that fact, and move on. avri On 29-Dec-15 12:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Yes Some people rush and rush. In some of the working party meeting in the past there was about 10 participant since others could not afford that. Multiplication if meetings and extension of their duration does not always have good results. We need good plan,good preparation and advance working document and establishment of priorities Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 25 Dec 2015, at 01:41, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016.

I also think 3hr meetings are ok. We might even consider one or more of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with people's work.

avri

...

On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occations, human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss

2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>:

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO.

-Jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dear Colleagues,

In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.

As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.

Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.

Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly.

We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate.

Best regards

Mathieu – Thomas - León

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi, The CCWG made the promises. - They were discussed with the group. - Then the leaders we had elected made decisions and the promises in our names. - Then, we did not eject them from leadership for having done so. I am not condemning us for slipping, just saying we need to figure out how to stop slipping and make and end of it. I believe are responsible for the commitments made in the name of the group. avri On 29-Dec-15 13:16, Nigel Roberts wrote:

These are promises made by external parties.

It's a well known tactic -- impose an artificial deadline and force through what you want.

On 29/12/15 18:05, Avri Doria wrote:

...

be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Doesn't the charter say that the co-chairs would be appointed by the chartering organizations at their election/discretion? Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:02 PM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January Who elected whom? I can't find any record of any election, which makes their actions even more deplorable. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 29 Dec 2015, at 23:09, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

The CCWG made the promises. - They were discussed with the group. - Then the leaders we had elected made decisions and the promises in our names. - Then, we did not eject them from leadership for having done so.

I am not condemning us for slipping, just saying we need to figure out how to stop slipping and make and end of it.

I believe are responsible for the commitments made in the name of the group.

avri

...

On 29-Dec-15 13:16, Nigel Roberts wrote: These are promises made by external parties.

It's a well known tactic -- impose an artificial deadline and force through what you want.

...

On 29/12/15 18:05, Avri Doria wrote:

be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Again, our decision making process is subordinate to external considerations. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 30 Dec 2015, at 06:14, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

Yes, they were selected by our chartering organization not elected by the members of the group. My error. But nonetheless, we, for the most part, have accepted them as the groups leader's.

Hey, but if we want to slow things down even more, we can ask the chartering organizations to pick new leadership, they can come in and reorganize the effort and another year will have passed. (No I do not advocate this)

avri

...

On 29-Dec-15 18:13, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Doesn't the charter say that the co-chairs would be appointed by the chartering organizations at their election/discretion?

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:02 PM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors@omadhina.NET> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Who elected whom?

I can't find any record of any election, which makes their actions even more deplorable.

el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

On 29 Dec 2015, at 23:09, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

The CCWG made the promises. - They were discussed with the group. - Then the leaders we had elected made decisions and the promises in our names. - Then, we did not eject them from leadership for having done so.

I am not condemning us for slipping, just saying we need to figure out how to stop slipping and make and end of it.

I believe are responsible for the commitments made in the name of the group. avri

...

On 29-Dec-15 13:16, Nigel Roberts wrote: These are promises made by external parties.

It's a well known tactic -- impose an artificial deadline and force through what you want.

...

On 29/12/15 18:05, Avri Doria wrote:

be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Co-Chairs Thank you very much for information, I am doubtful about the efficiency of discussing a given Rec. in a large group as plenary ? Moreover, any such discussion requires preparation of a working document containing the initial/ original version of the Rec.+ comments received from Board and from public in a consolidated document available at least 48 hours before the meeting. Then we need a topic Leader apart from Co-Chairs to present the consolidated Rec. and take follow up action to implement changes agreed. We also need to further examine the revised version again to finalise it. As for the Board 's comments we need to formally ask the Board to designate its full authorise representatives to negotiate with CCWG. As for the of meeting and the duration of each meeting, the issue should be discussed at the first meeting. As the deadline , complete the tasks, once again please DO NOT RUSH AND BE PRUDENT . There is no deadline at all. There was some objective time line and thus we should be quite mindful that any changes we made must 1. Have full consensus among us including Board and 2 . Must be published in one way or other for public comments . The latter is inevitable. Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Dec 2015, at 10:50, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,

Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.

Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.

While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.

We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.

If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.

As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.

Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu

I'm very personally in the same boat. I have attempted to add some value to the process, but in view of the nature (probably by design) of the proposed work-plan, I'm on the point of abandoning all but the most superficial of participation. I'm sure others are in this boat with me ... On 30/12/15 11:28, Chris Disspain wrote:

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won’t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it.

Cheers,

Chris

...

On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:

Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,

Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.

Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.

While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.

We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.

If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.

As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.

Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Thanks Mathieu. That makes perfect sense. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator

On 31 Dec 2015, at 05:39, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Chris, All,

I fully concur that an overarching agenda is a short term need, and needs a ccwg discussion. Our assumption is that this will be more relevant to discuss this once we have a summary of comments. Staff is working on it right now, and as soon as it is available, we will discuss this overarching agenda.

Best,

Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style

...

Le 30 déc. 2015 à 12:28, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> a écrit :

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won’t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it.

Cheers,

Chris

...

On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,

Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.

Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.

While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.

We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.

If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.

As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.

Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Co-Chairs, I just like to flag that it will be good to have the comments summary not later than 48hrs to any of the meeting slots on the schedule. Considering we are already less than 72hrs to the first meeting, I'd suggest that we have the agenda for that very first meeting provided (with review of comments out of it) as soon as possible. Unless ofcourse the summary comes in sooner than later. It's important to have an idea of what the agenda looks like for necessary planning. If there are other items to discuss aside from "review of comments" then let's have those early enough while comments review can be tentatively fixed for later. Happy new year! Regards On 30 Dec 2015 7:39 PM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Chris, All,

I fully concur that an overarching agenda is a short term need, and needs a ccwg discussion. Our assumption is that this will be more relevant to discuss this once we have a summary of comments. Staff is working on it right now, and as soon as it is available, we will discuss this overarching agenda.

Best,

Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style

Le 30 déc. 2015 à 12:28, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> a écrit :

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won’t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it.

Cheers,

Chris

On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All,

Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email.

Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups.

While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all.

We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do.

If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible.

As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions.

Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Seun, All, Happy New Year as well ! Your request for 48 hrs notice is quite reasonable indeed. Due to the end of year break, we won’t meet this for Tuesday’s meeting. You can expect an agenda by noon UTC on Monday, with the associated documents for Tuesday’s meeting (19 UTC). Topics planned for further meetings will be part of our discussions, so that agendas for the other meetings can be anticipated. As usual, no decision will be made in a single meeting, Thanks for your constructive suggestions. Best Mathieu De : Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Envoyé : samedi 2 janvier 2016 09:04 À : Mathieu Weill Cc : Chris Disspain; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January Dear Co-Chairs, I just like to flag that it will be good to have the comments summary not later than 48hrs to any of the meeting slots on the schedule. Considering we are already less than 72hrs to the first meeting, I'd suggest that we have the agenda for that very first meeting provided (with review of comments out of it) as soon as possible. Unless ofcourse the summary comes in sooner than later. It's important to have an idea of what the agenda looks like for necessary planning. If there are other items to discuss aside from "review of comments" then let's have those early enough while comments review can be tentatively fixed for later. Happy new year! Regards On 30 Dec 2015 7:39 PM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Chris, All, I fully concur that an overarching agenda is a short term need, and needs a ccwg discussion. Our assumption is that this will be more relevant to discuss this once we have a summary of comments. Staff is working on it right now, and as soon as it is available, we will discuss this overarching agenda. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style Le 30 déc. 2015 à 12:28, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> a écrit : Hi Mathieu, Thanks for this. Do you have a proposed topic agenda yet. I won’t be able to make all the calls (and I expect others will be in the same boat) so it would helpful to have an overarching agenda for the calls as soon as possible. Apologies if this has been sent already and I have missed it. Cheers, Chris On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:50 , Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Kavouss, Dear Paul, All, Some of you have raised concerns about the work plan and the decision to schedule two calls a week, announced in my 24th December email. Participants to our meeting #73 will remember that this issue was discussed during that call (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986612). Key take away was the need for plenary discussions rather than multiplying subgroups. While we certainly recognize the different views expressed about the timeline for delivering our final report, we are also trying to organize our calls in a manner that enables inclusive and informed debate about the comments received. 24 hours of calls in January "only" represent two hours of discussions per recommendation (leaving aside other types of issues that we dedicate time on during our calls). Two hours to fully understand concerns and find a way forward that is acceptable to all. We hope that, by using a topic based agenda and providing a thorough analysis of the comments received ahead of the call, we can make the best use of everyone's time during these calls, so that they can remain driven by the willingness to understand each of the concerns in good faith and find common ground, as we have demonstrated in the past that our group can do. If needed and desired within the group, we might have to rely on intensive days (possibly on a week end) as some of you suggested, but we are aware of the challenges of such an approach and would like to avoid that as much as possible. As a follow up to the discussion that took place during our meeting #73, we will put these proposals for discussion during our next meeting, on January 5th, and look forward to your further contributions and suggestions. Best regards, Leon, Thomas & Mathieu _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Co-Chairs I am worried about the future work progress. Not being able to even highlight the main points of agenda of Tuesday call is alarming that we may waste our time to just talk to each other either on micro or chat with no serious results Ber careful one can not push for a 3 hours meeting without having a clear agenda. Regards Kavouss . 2016-01-02 14:46 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com>:

What "end of year break" would that be?

And, would it then not be better to not have the call on Tuesday so that whoever broke can catch up?

el

On 2016-01-02 15:33 , Mathieu Weill wrote: [...]

...

Your request for 48 hrs notice is quite reasonable indeed. Due to the end of year break, we won’t meet this for Tuesday’s meeting. [...]

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Avri, I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "they should decide on those issues"? Mike

On Dec 29, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I am not into rushing. And certainly not into rushing for rushing sake.

But we have committed ourselves to getting the work done and we have a world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. We have been slipping our schedule. While the reasons for slipping the schedule may be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and continuing to do our best to get the work done. That is not done by taking a leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work intensively.

I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends.

I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full consensus. For example, if at the end of the intense work period in January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on those issues, we should document that fact, and move on.

avri

...

On 29-Dec-15 12:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Yes Some people rush and rush. In some of the working party meeting in the past there was about 10 participant since others could not afford that. Multiplication if meetings and extension of their duration does not always have good results. We need good plan,good preparation and advance working document and establishment of priorities Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 25 Dec 2015, at 01:41, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016.

I also think 3hr meetings are ok. We might even consider one or more of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with people's work.

avri

...

On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occations, human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss

2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>:

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO.

-Jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dear Colleagues,

In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.

As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.

Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.

Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly.

We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate.

Best regards

Mathieu – Thomas - León

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

As I wrote before, What does the one side say? What does the other side hear? What do both want to achieve? Usually it is power/control which translates into a lot of things. True Altruism is an Unamerican concept. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 29 Dec 2015, at 20:56, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All, Yes ,

we have committed ourselves to getting the work done Quickly Done , badly done? and we have a world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. To witness a correct work agreed by everybody or a work even objected at the level of CCWG?

We have been slipping our schedule. While the reasons for slipping the schedule may be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises.

Promisses to whom? there is no deadline but just objectives

We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and continuing to do our best to get the work done.

Yes, we have to go forward but not merely by dobbling the calls' number and their duration. We need to have a valid Schedule and valid work plan and review ,and if necessary revise our working method

That is not done by taking a leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work intensively.

Focusing on works intensively does not necerssirily means 8 calls each 3 hours in 24 days.without an overall agenda of the works and without working strategy and work plan

I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends.

We have had in the past few 3 hours meeting/calls which was not efficient. No meeting lasts more than 1,30 mints thus there is a need to break.

I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full consensus.

Therte are several areas in which there is not full consensus at this stage. Moreover, reviewing ICANN Board's comments more divergence were created..After receiving public comments, situation may get worse.

For example, if at the end of the intense work period in January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on those issues,

Who should devicides on those issues?

we should document that fact, and move on.we should

Documentsing the divergence and move on what?

We need to understand the golden rule of negotiation,mutual respect, mutual understanding and equality of rights Tks Kavouss

2015-12-29 19:26 GMT+01:00 Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com>:

...

Avri, I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "they should decide on those issues"?

Mike

...

On Dec 29, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I am not into rushing. And certainly not into rushing for rushing sake.

But we have committed ourselves to getting the work done and we have a world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. We have been slipping our schedule. While the reasons for slipping the schedule may be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and continuing to do our best to get the work done. That is not done by taking a leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work intensively.

I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends.

I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full consensus. For example, if at the end of the intense work period in January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on those issues, we should document that fact, and move on.

avri

...

On 29-Dec-15 12:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Yes Some people rush and rush. In some of the working party meeting in the past there was about 10 participant since others could not afford that. Multiplication if meetings and extension of their duration does not always have good results. We need good plan,good preparation and advance working document and establishment of priorities Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 25 Dec 2015, at 01:41, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016.

I also think 3hr meetings are ok. We might even consider one or more of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with people's work.

avri

...

On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occations, human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss

2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>:

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO.

-Jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m. To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dear Colleagues,

In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.

As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.

Duration of the calls will also be extended to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.

Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly.

We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate.

Best regards

Mathieu – Thomas - León

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Alan, Can you point out where the Charter gives voting rights to members? The relevant text below seems to say just the opposite. In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results. Thanks, Mike From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 3:18 PM To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com>; avri@acm.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January I read the "they" as being the formally appointed CCWG Members, to whom the charter gives voting rights. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On December 29, 2015 1:26:44 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com<mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com>> wrote: Avri, I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "they should decide on those issues"? Mike On Dec 29, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, I am not into rushing. And certainly not into rushing for rushing sake. But we have committed ourselves to getting the work done and we have a world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. We have been slipping our schedule. While the reasons for slipping the schedule may be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and continuing to do our best to get the work done. That is not done by taking a leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work intensively. I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends. I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full consensus. For example, if at the end of the intense work period in January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on those issues, we should document that fact, and move on. avri On 29-Dec-15 12:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Yes Some people rush and rush. In some of the working party meeting in the past there was about 10 participant since others could not afford that. Multiplication if meetings and extension of their duration does not always have good resu lts. We need good plan,good preparation and advance working document and establishment of priorities Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 25 Dec 2015, at 01:41, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016. I also think 3hr meetings are ok. We might even consider one or more of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with people's work. avri On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occ ations, human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss 2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%0b%20%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>>: I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO. -Jg From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m.< br /> To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January Dear Colleagues, In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January. As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly. Duration of the calls will also be exte nded to 3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary. Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly. We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate. Best regards Mathieu – Thomas - León ________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I was using "vote" implying to determine a level of consensus. The critical part is that it is a process involving Members (but not participants). -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On December 29, 2015 3:50:14 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:

Alan, Can you point out where the Charter gives voting rights to members? The relevant text below seems to say just the opposite. In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.

Thanks, Mike

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 3:18 PM To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com>; avri@acm.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

I read the "they" as being the formally appointed CCWG Members, to whom the charter gives voting rights.

Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On December 29, 2015 1:26:44 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com<mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com>> wrote:

Avri, I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "they should decide on those issues"?

Mike

On Dec 29, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

I am not into rushing. And certainly not into rushing for rushing sake.

But we have committed ourselves to getting the work done and we have a world of people waiting for us to make and end of it. We have been slipping our schedule. While the reasons for slipping the schedule may be legitimate (not always certain of that) it does not mean we haven't slipped on promises. We continue to slip. I think this commits us to do our best to just keep putting one foot in front of the other and continuing to do our best to get the work done. That is not done by taking a

leisurely time, but is one the aided by focusing on the work intensively.

I still think we should be considering intensive online working weekends.

I also think it may be time for the members among us (I am not one) to do some deciding on the issues where we still do not have full consensus. For example, if at the end of the intense work period in January we are still arguing about some details, they should decide on those issues, we should document that fact, and move on.

avri

On 29-Dec-15 12:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Yes Some people rush and rush. In some of the working party meeting in the past there was about 10 participant since others could not afford that. Multiplication if meetings and extension of their duration does not always have good resu

lts. We need good plan,good preparation and advance working document and establishment of priorities Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Dec 2015, at 01:41, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:

Hi,

I think the intensive schedule is necessary and we will find a way if we want to have any chance of succeeding with an IANA Transition in 2016.

I also think 3hr meetings are ok. We might even consider one or more of those remote weekends of meetings when they do not interfere with people's work.

avri

On 24-Dec-15 06:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear Mathieu Thank you for your suggestion As I told you at various occ

ations,

human being mental capacity should not be overloaded. I have participated in many conference calls since years. Any call which lasts more than two hours was totally inefficient Pls then reduce the duration to maximum two hours Regards Kavouss

2015-12-24 12:25 GMT+01:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net%0b%20%3cmailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>>:

I don’t forsee anyone who is not being compensated for their work being able to dedicate 6 hours from a working week to this, I object to rushing things and designing schedules which are unrealistic IMO.

-Jg

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> Date: Thursday 24 December 2015 at 11:22 a.m.<

br />

To: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org%0b%20%20%20%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

Dear Colleagues,

In line with the work plan discussion held on call #72, we wish to inform you that we have decided to increase the number of calls per week to two to allow for an in-depth analysis of the input received on our Draft Proposal, and discuss any complex requests for change there may be. It is currently foreseen that this frequency of calls will only apply to the month of January.

As discussed on 22 December, these calls will be plenary and topic-based. You will receive a list of topics in advance of the meetings so that you may plan your participation accordingly.

Duration of the calls will also be exte

nded to

3 hours to allow for ample time to complete our tasks. Calls will be cancelled (and/or duration will be reduced) if deemed unnecessary.

Please note that staff will send invites as well as overview of the conference call calendar shortly.

We look forward to reconvening in January and wish you a happy holiday season for those of you who celebrate.

Best regards

Mathieu – Thomas - León

________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Besides that ALAC members have not show to be reliable, I do not believe we can go that road, ie exclude participants from decision making. As much as I personally would like it. The below quote means to me that if there is no or little dissent, that's that. But if there is so much dissent by members and/or participants that a determination needs to be made, only the members would be asked. But, why are we discussing this? So far "they" were/was the Co-Chair(s). el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 29 Dec 2015, at 23:32, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:

Got it Fine with me

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 4:18 PM To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com>; avri@acm.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

I was using "vote" implying to determine a level of consensus. The critical part is that it is a process involving Members (but not participants). -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On December 29, 2015 3:50:14 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote: Alan, Can you point out where the Charter gives voting rights to members? The relevant text below seems to say just the opposite. In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.

Thanks, Mike

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 3:18 PM To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com>; avri@acm.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

I read the "they" as being the formally appointed CCWG Members, to whom the charter gives voting rights.

Alan

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community