[PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy

Amr Elsadr aelsadr
Thu Mar 5 13:05:08 EET 2015


Hi,

IMHO, working out the schedule is a job for chairs of all sorts. ACs, SOs, SGs/Cs, CWG/CCWGs, SCI, GNSO WGs, etc. It does seem like a logistical coordination task, but I?m guessing there is also a strategic aspect to it. I?m guessing that with shorter meetings, some activities that used to normally take place may need to be dropped, or maybe more meetings running simultaneously on the schedule. Deciding how this will play out will be a bit of an issue, won?t it?

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:10 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Glenn asked for SG/C reps who deal with meeting planning and scheduling, and the names she said were already on board looked like chairs, so I said sigh ok.  I understood it to be logistical crud so I wasn?t expecting this to be a big debate point requiring coordination.  But if someone else from NCUC is itching to read the mail and report back so CD planning etc is informed I?m happy to swap out, I won?t be chair after December anyway.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing this up, Sam. I think you make a good point.
>> 
>> I don?t see any harm in having constituency representatives forwarded. One thought that comes to mind is that NCUC and NPOC have their own meetings on CD, and might want to be represented in this discussion. This does not mean that NCSG would also not want to be represented on the SG level. NCSG has its own meetings on CD as well as the PC meeting during the traditional weekend prior to the meeting?s beginning.
>> 
>> Other thoughts would be appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I replied before I saw Glen's message with the "...invite to contribute one member". 
>>> For clarity, is that one from NCSG, or one from each of NCUC and NPOC...the wording is unclear (maybe only to me) "each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is invited to contribute one member"
>>> 
>>> In any event here could be a background NCSG dialogue on an NCSG/NCUC/NPOC position on the idea.
>>> 
>>> Sam L. 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/02cb555d/attachment.html>



More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list