[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: JAS Call Agenda - A Proposal

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric:
You're all over the shop with this one and I sense a conspiracy theorist at
play.  So  hear this.

We have 13 or so of scheduled talk hours until we shut down this part of our
operations, to gain consensus on outstanding matters and allow the drafters
to finalize the report.  In this period, Staff will also have to produce the
first draft of the public guide from this effort.

Several calls have been made for single issue conferences on different
issues under the 2 broad headings of our focus; read the transcripts, listen
to the recordings.  Given the crunch of time till consensus must be called
and the typical 30 mins or so talk time assigned each major area on our
calls, it appeared to us that maybe continuity - or enough time to fully
ventilate an issue - could be delaying the arrival of consensus on said
matter.  In addition, from reading the transcripts  and listening to the
recordings - or what we call in my part of the world 'having a presence of
mind' - you get the sense that in each major area of discussion, there are
particular subsets for which some members seem to have something to say or
for which some emotion is detected.

So as leaders and in the spirit that we assume guides this WG, we put these
matters to the group for guidance.  Note I say guidance.  For contrary to
what you insinuate and speaking just for myself here, I ALWAYS know what I
want to do.  EVERY time!

I have initiated and framed every single agenda for our calls since I became
co-chair.  That output is largely from one or other of reviewing
transcripts, listening to recordings of the calls and my own memory of the
discourse.  Then after all this, the agenda itself is presented to the
company assembled as DRAFT, meaning for the collective ADVICE and CONSENT.
Let me break it down further: this  means any Joe [or Jane] Blow on the call
can propose change, subject only to consensus of those on the call.

What we have proposed here is a way to give all of us a 'heads-up' and allow
the bugbears of specific members to surface before that bewitching hour.
This - and keeping our eyes on the clock - hopefully, eases the path to
consensus.  It's no more than another way of formalizing the 'advice and
consent' routine we set for the Agenda.  And to get Joe or Jane Blow
thinking before that bewitching hour.

The preceding is the long answer.  The shorter one is exactly 3 words, one
of vintage Anglo-Saxon stock.

Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:30 AM, <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Carlton,
>
> I could ask who raised the issue,  and for a pointer to where the reasons
> are to which you refer, or point to my prior request to have the RSP and
> Registrar draft first readings scheduled.
>
> Your proposal is that Avri and Elaine should take over the coordination of
> use of the ICANN bridge call-time allocated to the JAS WG, for some time
> to come.
>
> I was unaware that no other issues required call-time resources, and I
> suspect that the two issues you've identified, by a means I'm also not
> aware of, may not require the resource you propose to allocate to them.
>
> I've the anticipation that the use of call-time you've proposed is likely
> to result in less necessary communication rather than more. However, if
> you and Rafik are determined to turn over some of the responsiblies for
> critical communication resource coordination, I support your choice, as
> co-chairs, to delegate.
>
> I could be wrong of course.
>
> Eric
>