[PC-NCSG] GNSO DT new ICANN meeting strategy

Wed Mar 18 02:16:04 EET 2015

Hi Amr,

yes , done.

Rafik

2015-03-17 20:19 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Apologies for not following this up more promptly. There were no
> objections to my suggestion below, so I will consider this issue settled.
>
> Rafik, could you please inform Glen that you are the NCSG?s representative
> the new ICANN meeting strategy?s drafting team?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> The original email by Glen asked that we notify the GNSO Secretariat of
> the NCSG?s representative to the drafting team by March 13th, which is
> tomorrow. We now have only one nominee (Rafik), and support to this
> nomination was provided by Sam, Ed and myself. So if there are no
> objections to this appointment voiced between now and tomorrow at UTC
> 12:00, I will request that Rafik be the designated representative of the
> NCSG on the drafting team.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:02 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From the peanut gallery?
>
> Again, I think it?s a pretty logistical thing and it?s sensible for chairs
> who are responsible for organizing their groups? meetings to
> represent their groups in discussions about how to organize their groups?
> meetings.  Of course any substantive issues that rise to a level meriting
> discussion would be brought back to the groups.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> As Chair of the NCSG, with loads of experience on Council and elsewhere.
> Rafik would be the ideal candidate. I support that choice and thank him for
> volunteering.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As interesting as this conversation is, I would like to use my prerogative
> as PC Chair to shift focus to what the PC needs to do; the appointment of
> an NCSG representative to the drafting team. Rafik volunteered to do this.
> I would appreciate views on this, including if others feel there is another
> candidate who would be willing and appropriate for consideration.
>
> I would like to make clear that it is the duty of the PC to make this
> appointment on behalf of the full NCSG, and not on behalf of any of its
> constituencies. I suggest that NCUC and NPOC take up the matter of their
> own appointments directly with staff, if they so wish.
>
> This discussion certainly has value, and perhaps can be taken up on
> another thread. I think it would be ideally take place on NCSG-DISCUSS, not
> here.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>  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> wrote:
>
>
>  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
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> 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
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20150318/678c624c/attachment-0001.html>