[PC-NCSG] Fwd: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
Matthew Shears
mshears
Tue Nov 25 13:52:45 EET 2014
Excellent idea - Rafik and I were just discussing the same. Should we
create some shareable doc to start the process? Is there some more
formal way of doing it within the PC?
Matthew
On 11/25/2014 9:56 AM, joy wrote:
> Hi Bill - thanks a lot for sharing this - just wondering .... would it
> also be useful to do some kind of forward looking exercise to help
> planning? For example, mapping those new or emerging issues likely to
> impact on policy work in the 2015 as well as those spaces outside
> ICANN where SGs are planning to engage in 2015.
> Joy
>
>
> On 25/11/2014 10:02 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January. Any
>> thoughts on any of the below?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda*
>>> *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>> *Date: *November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>>> *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org
>>> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Tony Holmes
>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>,
>>> Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
>>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Marilyn Cade
>>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>,
>>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>"
>>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina
>>> Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak
>>> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Jimson
>>> Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net
>>> <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Maryam Bakoshi
>>> <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>, Brenda
>>> Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>,
>>> Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org
>>> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, Stefania Milan
>>> <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, William
>>> Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>> *To: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
>>>> <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I second Bill's thanks to Rob for this draft.
>>>> I also think Bill's suggestions re possible topics for the Monday
>>>> AM sessions make sense. Would be interested in others' views.
>>>
>>> Yes, please
>>>> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see addressed in
>>>> the "plenary" (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would be New gTLDs,
>>>> which should include preparation for the AOC review as well as the
>>>> other initiatives staff is undertaking.
>>>> I don't think EWG is a great topic for this meeting. GNSO review
>>>> certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start having that
>>>> discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue between Bill
>>>> and Tony earlier today.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if I'm remembering the conversation correctly, the items
>>> suggested so far by more than one SG would be
>>>
>>> 1. Accountability
>>> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
>>> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences on
>>> board, GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit a wall
>>> the remaining time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO dynamics,
>>> e.g. role of the Council in relation to the GNSO community,
>>> contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
>>>
>>> And options suggested by one SG include
>>>
>>> *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
>>> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
>>>
>>>> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the
>>>> possibility (likelihood?) that the House will want to "revisit" on
>>>> Tuesday one or more of the topics first broached on Monday. For
>>>> example, we might reach agreement in principle on something and ask
>>>> a subgroup to draft a statement for discussion the next day. In
>>>> other words, best to frontload the plenary topics a bit so there is
>>>> some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.
>>>
>>> 3 morning coffee thoughts:
>>>
>>> *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we'll have
>>> chances to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
>>>
>>> *To leave time for Steve's flexibility and accommodate any
>>> unfinished conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not
>>> leave the fourth slot unprogrammed, like a big AOB? It's only 90
>>> minutes, and an open discussion opportunity would allow for
>>> reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody goes away feeling like
>>> they didn't get to raise something they care about. Would be an
>>> integrative way to end the two days.
>>>
>>> *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items where
>>> there's broad agreement and ease into topics that might be more
>>> difficult after people have been together a bit, which might suggest
>>> proceeding 1, 2, 3 above => 4 open/loose ends discussion.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Other bits:
>>>
>>> *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG. Personally,
>>> I would not designate them as 'observers', if we are going to invite
>>> someone they shouldn't be somehow marked as different and should be
>>> able to participate fully like anyone else.
>>>
>>> *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let people
>>> chat on the first day, and would strongly encourage people to sit
>>> intermingled rather than self-segregated into NCSG and CSG tables.
>>> On the second day, we could do a) Larry; b) a less familiar-to-all
>>> beltway denizen, e.g. a Congressional or think tank poobah; or c)
>>> Fadi, who will have just met separately with the two SGs and might
>>> helpfully address us on an integrative basis thereafter. I guess
>>> one also could argue it'd be sort of bad form to not invite him to
>>> address us as group, no?
>>>
>>> *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in Fadi's
>>> Day 2 discussions with the SGs so he can get more familiar with our
>>> respective concerns.
>>>
>>> *"Day 3": I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any sort
>>> of outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or constituency basis,
>>> if so I'd think we should do the same and would need to factor that
>>> into our planning soon as it could affect travel schedules etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch]
>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
>>>> *To:*Robert Hoggarth
>>>> *Cc:*Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper;rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Marilyn Cade;lori.schulman at ascd.org
>>>> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz,
>>>> Steven; Rafik Dammak; Jimson Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda
>>>> Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; Stefania Milan; William Drake
>>>> *Subject:*Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>>> Hello
>>>> Thanks Rob for moving us along. Some initial reactions:
>>>> The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>>>> Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to
>>>> lead with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN
>>>> environment on which non-contracted would have broadly similar
>>>> concerns, e.g. expansion/diversification of contracted parties and
>>>> possible GNSO implications; and then do the second one on our
>>>> intra-house dynamics and cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections
>>>> etc. In other words, lead off with shared stuff to get everyone
>>>> acclimated and then ease into items on which we've struggled a bit?
>>>> Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like
>>>> we all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic.
>>>> If I understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in
>>>> talking about IANA stewardship in this context. If so, perhaps
>>>> EWG? Or would we want to discuss the GNSO Review and structural
>>>> issues in more detail?
>>>> I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways.
>>>> We also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the
>>>> Day 2 slots, after folks have been spending time together and are
>>>> warmed up etc...
>>>> Re: lunches, on the first day, maybe we'd want more casual
>>>> conversation opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be
>>>> good, a beltway luminary of some sort?
>>>> Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local
>>>> community members could join. As discussed, alternative
>>>> considerations would be keeping the group size reasonably
>>>> conversational and not being asymmetric. Could we compromise on
>>>> adding two heads per house?
>>>> I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn't know about
>>>> the meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available. I agree
>>>> it'd be good to have him there so folks who aren't could get
>>>> acquainted.
>>>> Also, going forward, two process requests:
>>>> *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc,
>>>> Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>. She is
>>>> copied here.
>>>> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don't need copies of every message
>>>> in both my accounts.
>>>> thanks much
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth
>>>> <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure
>>>> (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting. Per our
>>>> discussion this week, please share and discuss it with your
>>>> individual communities as you see fit. If our previous 2013
>>>> effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of
>>>> several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
>>>> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc.
>>>> as possible via email over the course of the next week.
>>>> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date
>>>> for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line
>>>> progress prior to that next meeting.
>>>> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda
>>>> Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you
>>>> in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course
>>>> of the events that week.
>>>> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning
>>>> timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the
>>>> 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need
>>>> your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon
>>>> as possible so that we can make sure that all intended
>>>> travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any
>>>> visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting.
>>>> Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we
>>>> can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
>>>> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
>>>> Best,
>>>> Rob
>>>> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141125/e457aa41/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list