[PC-NCSG] Reminder -- For Review and Feedback -- GNSO Inter-Sessional Meeting Planning Consensus - Pls Respond By COB 7 November -­ This Wednesday

[Robin Gross]

Thanks, Robert.  I am a member of the NCSG-PC (the only one engaged  
in this discussion from the NCSG-PC at this point.  Both Bill and  
Rafik were previously on the NCSG-PC, but since last month's GNSO  
Council elections, they are no longer members of the NCSG-PC).  We  
are currently in-between chairs for the NCSG-PC.  In the meantime I  
can act as a go-between with this discussion and the PC -- I'm just  
letting this group know that the NCSG-PC as a group will want to be  
involved in the planning and coordination of this meeting, since it  
is the NCSG leadership who should be coordinating the discussions on  
behalf of noncommercial users.

Thanks,
Robin


On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback Robin. I just saw your message after  
> transmitting my earlier note.
>
> I will incorporate your feedback with the other comments that are  
> being shared in my communique next week.  I would note that not all  
> topics addressed at the January meeting may be strictly policy  
> related, but I'm sure the inputs from the NCSG PC will be welcomed  
> on those relevant topics.  To keep the planning group manageable,  
> may I suggest you identify the Chair of that committee and we can  
> involve that individual in the planning discussions/correspondence.  
> Since we are now moving to the program/agenda phase of the planning  
> effort, perhaps you'll want that individual to take over the  
> planning responsibilities/representation of the NCSG.  In the  
> meantime, I'll let others on the list comment on your other thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 11/7/12 7:36 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Robert:
>
> Thanks for moving this forward.  LA works for NCSG as the  
> location.  Although given the location of LA, an outreach meeting  
> probably isn't the best use of the time, as there are no shortages  
> of Californians at ICANN, but an intra-constituency discussions  
> would be a better use of that time and resources.  The proposed  
> dates of January 29-30, 2013 are good for NCSG also.
>
> Support and participation should be divided equally between the  
> NCSG and the CSG (rather than divided by constituency as that  
> disadvantages the noncommercial participants who were all forced  
> into a single constituency until very recently).  This was agreed  
> by the CSG and NCSG leaders at the NCPH meeting in Toronto, so that  
> baseline principle needs to be factored into the planning and  
> organization of this meeting.
>
> It is important the ICANN staff coordinate the organization of the  
> specifics of the discussion with the NCSG Policy Committee.  The  
> NCSG Policy Committee is primarily responsible for developing NCSG  
> policy positions, and so the coordination and participation of the  
> NCSG-PC in these discussions in January with senior staff is  
> indispensable.  Therefore it is most likely to be members of the  
> NCSG-PC who should be leading discussions from the NC side of the  
> house - the same applies for the framing of topical discussions.   
> It is important to remember that the two sides of the NCP House are  
> organized differently internally, with NCSG working across the  
> entire SG to represent members on policy matters as per the NCSG  
> Charter.  If CSG wishes to coordinate its policy development  
> according to constituencies, that is its right.  But NCSG's charter  
> is explicit that policy development primarily happens at an SG  
> level, so these meetings and discussions should not impose the CSG  
> model onto the NCSG by not coordinating with the NCSG-PC.  Any  
> travel support should be provided to the NCSG Policy Committee as  
> part of the package or policy discussions with senior staff makes  
> little sense to us since our policy leaders won't be included.
>
> I agree that the existing proposed topics are a sufficient start so  
> we could focus on those initially.  I also think it could be useful  
> for the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chairs to be there - simply as an  
> opportunity for them to better understand our concerns and ways of  
> working.  Remote participation from other members of the NCPH  
> community, who are not able to travel to LA is also very important  
> for this meeting to be a success so I was glad to see it will be  
> provided for.
>
> Thank you,
> Robin
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote:
>
>> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus,  
>> Michael and Rafik;
>>
>> Because I think a number of you have been traveling, this is just  
>> a quick reminder of the opportunity to pass on to the list any  
>> feedback on the consensus date and location you might have by COB  
>> today/tomorrow ? Wednesday.  We'll be proceeding with the  
>> consensus date and location plans outlined in my original message  
>> below unless substantial objections are expressed by the deadline.
>>
>> Any other comments or thoughts you have regarding the proposed  
>> meeting scope, program/agenda, supported traveler counts or next  
>> steps are welcomed going forward.  Absent objections, I'll  
>> formally confirm the date and location with you shortly so  
>> everyone can "save the date".
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 11/1/12 9:54 PM, "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus,  
>> Michael and Rafik;
>>
>> Thanks for all your inputs before and during the Toronto meeting  
>> on the topic of an Inter-Sessional meeting of the GNSO Non  
>> Contracted Parties in January 2013.
>>
>> This email summarizes the consensus to date and the actions that  
>> Staff is taking to make the meeting arrangements. I have used a  
>> format similar to my last pre-Toronto communiqu?.  I wish the note  
>> could be shorter, but I wanted to be sure to touch as many bases  
>> as possible.  Also, please note the response/reaction/feedback  
>> deadline of COB next Wednesday, 7 November at the end of this  
>> message.
>>
>> Date:
>>
>> 1. General agreement on last week of January with preference as  
>> late in the week as possible.  Hotel space and senior staff  
>> availability make January 29 and 30, 2013 the most ideal dates and  
>> Staff is pursuing that option.  We hope to be able to lock that  
>> date down next week after your feedback.
>>
>> Location:
>>
>> 2. Given the priority of senior Staff attendance/collaboration,  
>> availability of event space, travel options and cost efficiencies  
>> of having an in-house meeting, the ICANN office in Los Angeles,  
>> California offers the best location for the pilot meeting and  
>> absent serious objections, that is what planning staff is now  
>> focused on.
>>
>> Meeting Scope:
>>
>> 3. Planners seemed to agree that an inter-sessional meeting with  
>> focused discussion on big picture/high level and strategic matters  
>> combined with specific operational discussions would be quite  
>> useful to thecommunity. Specific session topics have been proposed  
>> and identified.  A list is provided at the bottom/end of the  
>> attached draft program/agenda.
>>
>> 4. Planners agreed that senior ICANN Staff participation in the  
>> event is a critical component of a successful inter-sessional  
>> pilot meeting.  We have confirmed a critical mass of senior staff  
>> will be available on January 29 and 30, 2013 in Los Angeles.
>>
>> 5. There was recognition that the first pilot gathering should be  
>> smaller and more focused to help confirm ICANN strategic  
>> directions and resource commitments and to explore collaboration  
>> opportunities betweenICANN Staff and the NCPH (Non Contract Party  
>> House) community.  Consensus is 6-10 attendees from each  
>> constituency.  Based on our research and cost estimates, meeting  
>> room space and budget constraints will keep the number closer to  
>> the bottom end of that range.
>>
>> 6.  The size of the ICANN LA office necessarily limits meeting  
>> participation to  a maximum of approximately 50 in-person meeting  
>> attendees.  This count would allow for 13 GNSO NCPH council  
>> members, plus 4 additional attendees from each Constituency  
>> (4*5=20), plus an additional 3 attendees from each  
>> stakeholdergroup (3*2=6), for an initial proposed total of 39  
>> community attendees (plus Staff participation).  If all travelers  
>> are funded at the standard expected rate of $3,000 per trip (total  
>> airfare and hotel costs) then additional funds would be available  
>> for food, meeting logistics (e.g., remote participation and  
>> scribes, etc.) and additional representational attendance from the  
>> contracted parties (see para 10 below)would also be an option.
>>
>> 7. The proposed 40 attendee/traveler number can be adjusted up or  
>> down based on further discussions, but would satisfy the consensus  
>> view that each Constituency should have the flexibility to bring  
>> additional communitymembers who might have expertise on the  
>> particular topics or agenda items that will be determined for the  
>> meeting agenda. We are also mindful of the budget constraints for  
>> this project and the 40 traveler number helps us meet that  
>> objective. Note that remote participation capabilities will give  
>> us furtherflexibility.
>>
>> 8. Planners noted that some of the meeting time could be devoted  
>> to individual community discussions or caucus opportunities as  
>> well.  Staff has kept this option in mind and we have identified  
>> space and agenda availability for as many as 5 simultaneous  
>> breakout meetings of approximately 8 people to meet at some point  
>> during the meeting agenda. That time slot can also potentially be  
>> adjusted based on the specific needs or interests of each of your  
>> communities.
>>
>> Meeting Agenda:
>>
>> 9. A number of you mentioned prospective meeting topics.  They are  
>> listed at the bottom of the draft meeting schedule/agenda attached  
>> to this email.  It has been suggested that each Constituency could  
>> host and lead the discussions of at least one meeting topic, so  
>> the draft agenda table provides an opportunity for you to indicate  
>> interest in volunteering to host/chair a topic.
>>
>> 10.  During one of our discussions, an interest was expressed in  
>> having members of the contract community also participate in the  
>> meeting.  The contracted parties are planning their own inter- 
>> sessional event in Amsterdam one week before the proposed NCPH  
>> meeting in LA so substantial participation from that community may  
>> not be possible.  In Toronto, I did mention the possibility of  
>> meeting participation to the new GNSO Council Chair (Jonathan  
>> Robinson) and the new Vice Chair from the GNSO Contracted Parties  
>> House (Mason Cole).  Both fellows expressed an interest in the  
>> NCPH meeting ? chiefly for the potential value of future  
>> information exchange and collaboration opportunities.  The  
>> planning group may still wish to explore an agenda item on the  
>> role of the GNSO Council or on the future policy working  
>> relationship with contract parties.  Even remote participation  
>> from Jonathan or Mason may prove to be helpful in this regard.  
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Travel Support:
>>
>> 11. As noted in items 7 and 8 above, travel funding will be made  
>> available for all community travelers.  Based on an average of  
>> $3,000 total travel costs per each traveler (economy air fare,  
>> plus two or three hotel nights), a group of 40 people would appear  
>> to meet the projected budget for the proposed pilot effort.  
>> Increasing that number would probably require us to cut out a  
>> reception.
>>
>> 12. Scribing and remote participation capabilities will enable us  
>> to expand meeting attendance to ensure participation by community  
>> members who might not be able to travel to the meeting. Staff is  
>> factoring those costs into the logistics and potential costs for  
>> the meeting.
>>
>> Next Steps:
>>
>> 13.  Please take some time to review these materials and provide  
>> feedback to the circulation list by no later than COB your local  
>> time next Wednesday, 7 November. If you have any serious  
>> objections to the proposed meeting dates or the LA location please  
>> express them as soon as possible so that we can recalibrate.   
>> Absent a serious objection, we will lock down that date and the LA  
>> location next week (on 7 November) so that you can announce the  
>> meeting to your respective communities as appropriate.  If I hear  
>> from all of the communities earlier than 7 November, we'll lock  
>> things down faster.
>>
>> 14.  Suggestions for ?tweeking? the remaining logistics and  
>> developing the program/agenda topics and times are most welcomed  
>> and can be worked out over the next couple of weeks of regular  
>> emails.  I will manage that process through regular emails and  
>> requests for your feedback.  Please feel free to red-line comment  
>> and edit the attached draft program schedule agenda ? particularly  
>> filling in where you may wish to volunteer chair/host a particular  
>> topic. Session Chair volunteers will be accepted on a first-come  
>> first-served basis. Each Constituency should have the opportunity  
>> to host at least one of the six (or more) topic sessions.  So feel  
>> free to volunteer in your feedback note to the group.
>>
>>
>> Thanks again for your help in getting this effort organized!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rob
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121107/2952532e/attachment-0001.html>