[PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy

[David Cake]

On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Also, IMHO this is neither as bad or as complicated as it looks at first glace. It does call for rethinking the best SG use of time, including the time leading up to f2f meetings, and we should think through both of those as we plan. The synchronous/f2f should build on, and not substitute for, preconference work focused on the best use of conference time.
> 
> When I first reviewed the change proposals I wondered about the minimal marginal savings of shorter meetings, but soon realized that savings and marginal costs were not the core issues here. I see two core issues that are a win-win. First, ICANN will be able to schedual meeings in a more representative pattern of venues around the globe, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and not just in the convention capitals of those regions.

> Second, what is to be minimized, at least for one or two events a year, are those sessions that are both more ceremonial, and IMHO contain a lot of the "same old same old" with respect to content and positions. One can listen to parts of the audio from ICANNXX and find it a lot like the audio from ICANNXX-1. For that once a year would be enough.

	And some of us have no problem with that aspect of the meeting proposal, but don?t want the middle meeting, which is supposed to be the SO/AC focussed meeting, to have less actual time for SO/AC work.
	I?d love a middle meeting that is somewhat shorter than the current, by dumping the opening ceremony, public forum in whole or part, the big picture sessions etc. and that by skipping a lot of the business focussed items, social events, etc allows us to focus on getting work done.
	The real problem is that ICANN has a large number of people who attend but have very little to do with SOAC work, and that makes the meetings, especially the big plenary sessions, very big. The real problem is size, not length, so I don?t know why they are being so defensive on length.

> Lastly, with a shorter non-SC agenda and reworking the shorter schedual there are opportunities for SGs to get more work done, deal across SGs in more productive ways, and -very important- have greater engagement with their constituencies in the new meeting regions.

	Indeed, and thats all fine. The problem is that rather than a meeting schedule that has a shorter non-SO/AC agenda allowing more time for SOAC work, we have a meeting that has a shorter non-SOAC agenda, and a shorter SOAC agenda too.

	SOAC

	David

> 
> This about more than trying to put the same old foot in a smaller shoe. It is  a  major opportunity on the table.
> 
> Sam L. Chair, NPOC Policy Committee
> 
> 
> Sent from Samsung Mobile
> 
> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 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
>> *********************************************************
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/6d895e6b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/6d895e6b/attachment.sig>