[NCSG-PC] YOUR FEEDBACK REQUESTED: Planning for 2018 NCPH Intersessional & GNSO Council strategic planning sessions
Marilia Maciel
mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Thu Aug 3 16:23:31 EEST 2017
Hi
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
>
> So I think intersessionals are useful enough to continue, and while I
> appreciate the concerns of overloading people, Bill's suggestion of
> spreading the load is good: the more people we get involved, the
> better.
>
Agreed.
>
> And with that in mind, Ayden's argument against combining intersessional
> with other meetings makes a lot of sense. I don't have a strong opinion
> on that, though - sometimes it might work very well, sometimes less so.
I think while the interssesional is relevant, it would be much easier to
justify it (from both a practical and financial standpoints) if it was
coupled with some other activity. Someone mentioned the possibility to do
it back to back with GDD meeting too. No strong preferences as to what
meeting it should be coupled with (it could vary from year to year) but the
intersessional should not be a stand alone.
> I share the concerns about time and effort needed to prepare, however,
> and perhaps making them biannual or alternating them with something
> different (like a similar meeting with RrSG/RySG every other year)
> might be worth considering.
>
Great suggestion (re. similar meeting with RrSG/RySG every other year)
>
> As for location, visa-unfriendliness is a big concern. In particular
> USA has been problematic, every time I've been involved at least one
> of our would-be travellers has been unable to make it because of visa
> issues (unless I've forgotten something, in Reykjavik the only one who
> could not make it because of visa issues was Farzaneh, and that was
> due to US regulations, not Iceland's). And we knew in advance some
> people would not have been able to go to Istanbul either. Of course no
> location is perfect, I don't see any place that could guarantee
> everybody will get in, but visa-friendliness should definitely
> weigh heavily on location choice.
>
Agreed.
> Finally, considering 2018 in particular, even though I personally
> don't plan to be there, I think combining it with the Council
> Strategic Session makes a lot of sense.
Same for me.
Marilia
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 10:01:07AM +0900, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com)
> wrote:
> >
> > (also observer)
> >
> > +1 I thought the two meetings I participated in when chair were useful
> in terms of relational bridge building, clearly identifying areas of
> agreement/disagreement/possible joint actions between NCSG/CSG, and
> thinking about the NCPH trajectory in general in light of the evolution due
> to the new gTLDs. At one of them, we also managed to do a very good
> outreach session which ultimately helped encourage important CSOs to join.
> If the argument is that some folks e.g. Councilors feel too tapped out to
> attend, then send other members who are available and interested, as long
> as there’s preparation and a clear mandate and any actual decisions come
> back to the general membership and ‘leadership’ bodies for vetting before
> action I don’t see the problem. Could help with onboarding into WG work
> etc. too. Proximity to an office for logistics, not wandering the earth in
> search of post-meeting tourism.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > On Jul 30, 2017, at 02:01, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > (observer)
> > >
> > > I think that the annual conversation between CSG et al and NCSG et al,
> > > is a good thing and an important thing. I think it also should be
> > > coordinated with staff contacts so that both CSG and NCSG can hear the
> > > same things.
> > >
> > > I think the GNSO council et al spending some time in retreat is also
> > > important for building a council that can sustain working together. It
> > > can't happen at the full meetings, so makes sense that it happen
> outside
> > > that. I think this should also be don with staff access.
> > >
> > > I think all of these meetings are best done in proximity to an ICANN
> > > office and offset from the 3 main meetings.
> > >
> > > The meetings need planning and focus, but I do not believe it wise to
> > > let them drop.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28-Jul-17 18:48, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I am not enthusiastic about more meetings either. And I am not keen
> > >> on travelling to the US.....Los Angeles takes way longer than Iceland,
> > >> for me, with way more hassle. I have never been to Mexico, so I dont
> > >> know how hard that is. Am indifferent about putting the two meetings
> > >> together, makes sense not to fly twice.
> > >>
> > >> cheers SP
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2017-07-28 18:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I am among those who are not really supporting holding another
> > >>> intersessional meeting next year. We are not doing any serious review
> > >>> and trying to improve it but just carrying on because we got a
> budget.
> > >>> if the interesessional will be organized anyway, I think it would
> > >>> make sense to hold it in the same week with the Council planning
> > >>> meeting. that means 1 travel less for councilors at least.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>>
> > >>> Rafik
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-07-28 19:57 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> > >>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for sharing this, Stephanie, and for inviting our feedback.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the two meetings should be held separately at different
> > >>> times of the year, as they serve different purposes and cater to
> > >>> different audiences [with some overlap].
> > >>>
> > >>> I understand that ICANN staff try only to travel during business
> > >>> hours, but some of our participants might find it easier to be
> > >>> able to travel to a meeting over a weekend and to have the
> > >>> meeting commence on a Sunday. I am not sure what others think
> > >>> about this suggestion, particularly those on the GNSO Council who
> > >>> would be impacted here, but just putting that idea out there...
> > >>>
> > >>> For the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Meeting, it makes sense
> > >>> to me to have this in Los Angeles given it is the closest ICANN
> > >>> office for the majority of the likely participants.
> > >>>
> > >>> For the Intersessional (which I think should continue, though I
> > >>> understand that is not a view held by all) I also think Los
> > >>> Angeles makes a lot of sense, though I understand the participant
> > >>> profiles vary, and it may be very difficult for many of the
> > >>> Intersessional participants to travel to the United States. Based
> > >>> on the participant profiles of everyone who attended the
> > >>> Intersessional this year, I believe Mexico City would be much
> > >>> easier for everyone to travel to [anyone with an existing US or
> > >>> Canadian visa does not need a visa to enter Mexico, and for many
> > >>> in Latin America, Mexico’s immigration policies are very fair].
> > >>> It would also be a rather economical choice.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -------- Original Message --------
> > >>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: YOUR FEEDBACK REQUESTED: Planning for
> > >>>> 2018 NCPH Intersessional & GNSO Council strategic planning
> sessions
> > >>>> Local Time: July 27, 2017 9:37 PM
> > >>>> UTC Time: July 27, 2017 8:37 PM
> > >>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> > >>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> > >>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Perhaps we ought to discuss this on the broader list as well,
> > >>>> just forwarding....
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Stephanie
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > >>>> Subject:
> > >>>> YOUR FEEDBACK REQUESTED: Planning for 2018 NCPH
> Intersessional
> > >>>> & GNSO Council strategic planning sessions
> > >>>> Date:
> > >>>> Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:22:29 +0000
> > >>>> From:
> > >>>> Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
> > >>>> To:
> > >>>> Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, Susan
> > >>>> Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com
> >>
> > >>>> <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com <mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com>>,
> Heather Forrest
> > >>>> <haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>
> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>,
> > >>>> icannlists <icannlists at winston.com <mailto:
> icannlists at winston.com>>
> > >>>> <mailto:icannlists at winston.com <mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>,
> Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben
> > >>>> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-
> online.de>>
> > >>>> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <mailto:
> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, Anthony Harris
> > >>>> <anthonyrharris at gmail.com <mailto:anthonyrharris at gmail.com>>
> <mailto:anthonyrharris at gmail.com <mailto:anthonyrharris at gmail.com>>,
> > >>>> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> > >>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>,
> Milan, Stefania
> > >>>> <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>> <mailto:
> Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, Marilia
> > >>>> Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> >>
> > >>>> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>,
> Stephanie Perrin
> > >>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> > >>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, Martin Pablo Silva
> > >>>> Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> >>
> > >>>> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>,
> Johan Helsingius
> > >>>> <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>> <mailto:julf at julf.com
> <mailto:julf at julf.com>>
> > >>>> CC:
> > >>>> Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:
> benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>
> > >>>> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.
> org>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dear Heather, Susan, Marilia, Stefania, Stephanie, Phil, Rafik,
> > >>>> Tony, Julf, Wolf-Ulrich, Paul and Martin,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am writing to seek your input as we (ICANN staff) begin
> > >>>> working with the GNSO Council leadership and the NCPH leadership
> > >>>> to plan two face-to-face meetings that have been approved for FY
> > >>>> 2018. One is a 2-3 day strategic planning session for the GNSO
> > >>>> Council (approved as a pilot project for FY2018), and the other
> > >>>> is the periodic NCPH Intersessional meeting.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As the application for the GNSO Council’s strategic planning
> > >>>> meeting had indicated that this might take place in January
> > >>>> 2018, and as the NCPH Intersessional has traditionally taken
> > >>>> place in January or February, staff would like to know if you
> > >>>> believe it will be _preferable for these two meetings to take
> > >>>> place concurrently, such that both meetings can occur within the
> > >>>> space of a single week in the same location, or if you think it
> > >>>> will be better to plan them as two separate meetings taking
> > >>>> place at different times in the year_.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You may be interested to know that the ICANN process for
> > >>>> face-to-face meeting planning has been updated (as of June
> > >>>> 2017), such that meeting requests for location, dates and travel
> > >>>> now have to be sent in several months ahead of time. For the
> > >>>> GNSO Council strategic planning meeting, the budget approval
> > >>>> requires an ICANN office location, with preference for Los
> > >>>> Angeles – hence, if you think running both meetings concurrently
> > >>>> in the same week is better, this will most probably mean that
> > >>>> the NCPH Intersessional will take place in Los Angeles as well.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We understand that, as these events are going to take place in
> > >>>> calendar year 2018, several of you may no longer be on the
> > >>>> Council by that time. In addition, decisions and programming
> > >>>> concerning the NCPH Intersessional is the responsibility of the
> > >>>> NCPH leadership and not the GNSO Council. However, for planning
> > >>>> purposes we thought it appropriate to seek as much input as
> > >>>> possible from those community members who may be most affected
> > >>>> by the dates and timing, and so we hope you are able to provide
> > >>>> us with your opinion as to which option is preferred.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks and cheers
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Mary
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
--
*Marília Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170803/fcfffdcd/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list