[PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy
Sam Lanfranco
lanfran
Thu Mar 5 16:45:55 EET 2015
Ed,
Just a short response to "/folks in smaller cities should have the
chance to confront the Board"/, while I am not against that in
principle, how it how happens is generally unsatisfactory, based on my
conversations with the "local folk" who do confront the board. Many come
away with a feeling that it was ritual and that all the board is doing
is looking accessible..and little more. There is little evidence to
counter that impression. Some come away bruised. I spent 30 minutes with
the highly esteemed medical professor who "confronted" the board on
.health in Los Angeles. He walked out of there bruised and confused.
There of course those who confront the board as "part of their job",
i.e., some commercial and non-contract people at the event, and others
doing it as career capital. Fine, but it all falls short on the "voice
of the local folk" part.
This would work if we (the SG's) better engaged the "local folk" prior
to the meetings and prior to the public forum. ICANN underestimates the
extent to which it is a "walled city" from the outside. After Singapore
I was in Bangkok and looking at DNS awareness and issues in Myanmar and
Laos. There should/could have been targeted pre-Conference outreach
there. ICANN has little presence there, little evidence of effort, or of
any impact. Last year, in Buenos Aires, the only major local coverage of
ICANN was basically a pre-conference Sunday Clarion article based on an
interview with me. The CEOs local appearances are seen more as PR than
outreach. For Buenos Aires this time, are their pot boiler DNS issues in
Latin America? As far as the NPOC constituency group members are
concerned, there are, but they don't view "a chance to confront the
Board" as even a card in their DNS strategy deck of playing cards for
dealing with the issues.
Sam
On 2015-03-05 8:44 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Save the public forum, which I'd prefer be held even in the shorter
> meeting (folks in smaller cities should have the chance to confront
> the Board...happy with a smaller public forum at those meetings
> restricted to residents of the region), I agree with David's comments.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:39 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au
> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 9:25 pm, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
--
*--------------------------------------------*
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150305/9250262a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list