Reminder Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board

Tue Oct 15 09:12:20 EEST 2019

Hi Stephanie,

thanks,
reading the board response to council about EPDP phase recommendations, I
guess bringing the topic on how board will handle  EPDP phase 2
recommendations (yet to be delivered) and how it will deal with all
interested parties . it can be structured as about PDP in general and EPDP
in particular. I think we saw in last years how board acted on
recommendations from PDPs, reviews and WS1 and WS2 ad their implementation,
and we can give some thoughts on the matter. I don't think it will be
adversarial but more to understand how board organize itself to be
effective and respectful of community deliverable and not just talking
about Brian cute initiative.

Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 15 oct. 2019 à 22:52, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> a écrit :

> I certainly can see your point Rafik. Got any suggestions for a good topic?
> Stephanie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 14, 2019, at 19:31, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> I am not sure why we would discuss this with board as the GNSO council
> already started  the work is ongoing with PDP 3.0 and implementing the
> recommendations. PDP 3.0 already covers the topic of different alternative
> structure models for PDPs. It is the GNSO council as policy manager making
> decision on what is the adequate structure and not the board itself. with
> regard to resources, we expect that for PDP we will do better job in term
> of planning resources from GNSO council and PDP WG side but getting
> commitment from board
>
> I think we need to make it clear that EPDP is not structure but a process
> that can be triggered for narrow conditions outlined in GNSO OP. It seems
> that many like the GAC believe that EPDP is way to speed up usual PDP which
> is not really the case.
>
> I can also see the board just pointing us to Brian cute initiative which
> listing those issues and the last public comment document itself referring
> to PDP 3.0 implementation work. They can also do the same for reviews as
> there were the discussion papers and public comments initiated by ICANN
> about scoping and timeline for reviews.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le mar. 15 oct. 2019 à 07:04, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :
>
>> How about this for a topic:  Does the EPDP represent the PDP of the
>> future?  and Does it work?
>>
>> We recognize that many of the recent PDPs and Review exercises have beome
>> large, unweildy, and difficult to finish.  They tend to take a long time,
>> and volunteers are finding it increasingly difficult to stick with a PDP
>> from start to finiash, particularly including the Implementation committees
>> which are also important.  We have asked about how we are supposed to
>> bringour newmembers up to speed to contribute on these expert processes,
>> and the answer to that problem is still begging...but now we would like to
>> discuss what the future looks like in terms of structure, resources, and
>> commitment.
>>
>> It's pretty open-ended, so we can take that conversation wherever we
>> would lie to go.  Personally, I like the balanced structure of the EPDP,
>> particularly since I am a survivor of the free-for-all that was the RDS pdp
>> that preceded it.
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>> PS deadline is tonight, happy Canadian Thanksgiving to all!
>>
>> On 2019-10-10 23:41, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think bringing up volunteer burnout will prompt the usual answer: just
>> figure out your internal organization better.
>>
>> However EPDP has certainly been a major drain of volunteer time, and this
>> same lack of time on the part of a large section of our leadership and
>> available volunteers might have been a contributing factor to several
>> problems we have been facing.
>>
>> In that sense, I think a discussion on what kind of support resources
>> they could provide the EPDP team would be welcome. I know this is meant to
>> be the "last stretch" I'm also not on that team. But the need for more
>> administrative/"research" support was voiced at least in Marrakech by a few
>> members, and it's not something that has been further discussed, at least
>> not on this list. And if not worth it for this time, this discussion might
>> be worth it for later.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:36 PM Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just a reminder folks, I have to have a topic to discuss with the Board
>>> by close of day Monday.  As you can see, they want to talk about the
>>> following:
>>> *“Community, Board and ICANN org readiness to implement the following
>>> three critical plans that will shape ICANN’s future. : (1) Strategic Plan
>>> FY 21-25, (2) Operating & Financial Plan FY 21-25, and (3) Work Plan to
>>> improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model.”*
>>>
>>> I must confess that I continue to want to talk about burnout and how we
>>> can foster more engagement and work distribution in our community response
>>> to all the work that is involved in the above.  We have a very small number
>>> of volunteers actively engaged on committees and PDPs, and high
>>> expectations from rank and file members with respect to results. However, I
>>> am happy to entertain other single focus topics if folks have ideas for a
>>> more interesting them....I realize that talking about burnout is never
>>> popular.
>>>
>>> Given the Board's stated preference to discuss a single topic in a more
>>> wide-ranging conversation, I think we should resist the urge to opt for a
>>> series of questions instead.  Unfortunately, it often has a firing squad
>>> feel to it when we do that.
>>>
>>> cheers Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> NCSG Chair
>>>
>>> *From:* Vinciane Koenigsfeld <vinciane.koenigsfeld at icann.org>
>>> *Date:* 23 September 2019 at 08:29:27 BST
>>> *To:* "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" <so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org>
>>> *Cc:* Board-Ops-Team <board-ops-team-bounces at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* *[ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions -
>>> Topic from the Board*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Please reply no later than Monday 14 October 2019*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Board and I are very much looking forward to engaging with you
>>> during our 21st AGM that will take place in Montreal between 2-7
>>> November 2019.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We wish to keep working on improving our interaction with you and, in
>>> particular, we want to address some of the requests and feedback we have
>>> received and introduce some more flexibility in the format of our valuable
>>> face-to-face meetings.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Starting in Montreal, instead of sending up to three questions to the
>>> Board, we would like to offer you the *alternative* option of choosing
>>> a single topic and having an open discussion with the Board on that topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are also suggesting that the list of questions or topics received be
>>> shared with the entire Community using the Policy digest, in order to
>>> increase transparency and allow the groups to improve their own
>>> understanding of their peers’ point of views on different issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As for time allocation, we propose to allocate half of our time together
>>> to answer your questions or discuss your single topic and the other half to
>>> address the Board’s topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In preparation for our meetings, the Board chose the following topic to
>>> have an open discussion with you:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *“Community, Board and ICANN org readiness to implement the following
>>> three critical plans that will shape ICANN’s future. : (1) Strategic Plan
>>> FY 21-25, (2) Operating & Financial Plan FY 21-25, and (3) Work Plan to
>>> improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model.”*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Strategic Plan [icann.org]
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_strategic-2Dplan-2D2021-2D2025-2D24jun19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=G2nr6qllkejitMocxR4uW29Z_W5sz1jp-EdSnMjtZfo&s=E_lf_KIvrmDMSIoHktHEXMyyERpNA5Ohivkdyiw45nk&e=> has
>>> been adopted by the Board last June at ICANN 65 in Marrakech.  The two
>>> other plans will be completed and posted for public comment in December
>>> 2019.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At ICANN 64 in Kobe, the Board asked each constituency to p*rovide
>>> three suggestions, one for the Board, one for ICANN org and one for the
>>> Community *of things/aspects that should be done/improved in order to
>>> implement  these plans successfully, starting 1 July 2020, as mandated by
>>> our Bylaws.  In addition, the Board asked for *one suggestion* of
>>> something that could be done *externally* to improve trust and with our
>>> partners and alliances (eg. IETF) so that they collaborate effectively with
>>> ICANN on some of our strategic objectives (eg. DNS security).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on the input received in Kobe, we are compiling a list of
>>> suggested actions for the community, Board and ICANN org which we would
>>> like to share and discuss with you in Montreal.  We will send you that list
>>> in advance of our meeting in Montreal on or before 11 October 2019.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations (
>>> board-ops-team at icann.org)  your single topic or the  list of questions
>>> (max. 3), in order of priority, no later than *Monday 14 October 2019
>>> or sooner.  *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For information, we are not changing the current total time allotted per
>>> group nor the room set-up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our
>>> suggestions and on how to improve our interaction further.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward
>>> to welcoming you in Canada!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Cherine Chalaby
>>>
>>> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list
>>> SO-AC-SG-CLeaders at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=G2nr6qllkejitMocxR4uW29Z_W5sz1jp-EdSnMjtZfo&s=B0006uzMAWuxrDNfLP52zJrgi0usZ9E7vikdnUKD_-8&e=
>>> ) and the website Terms of Service (
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=G2nr6qllkejitMocxR4uW29Z_W5sz1jp-EdSnMjtZfo&s=CjWZposHShHlmx9VbAZbdxTEsuu2FFbnApDJ-jsdLfw&e=
>>> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191015/15019c5e/attachment.htm>