[NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020

Fri Aug 24 07:03:22 EEST 2018

Ayden,

I had the impression that we had said in our comment on budget that we do
the intersessional every "other" year. Based on the thread below, which
Rafik, Tatiana, Milton had supported every other year  and mentioned it.
But seems like you  decided to delete the paragraph altogether and I did
not personally respond to add it back in and support every other year.

Is ICANN giving us 100,000 USD to go to events that we have done so well so
far? RightsCon, IGF etc? No. It is throwing bad money after bad. Can we ask
for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget it might be
possible.

No one on post intersessional mailing list was meaningfully active,
 responding to staff questions and commenting (other than you). Rarely
there were any substantive comments that added to the report etc. And we
spent a lot of time planning the last year's intersessional  but it does
not get any better. We have made more progress procedural wise, via email
than we have  done during these meetings. Also we have to always put out
fire in these meetings. It is exhausting. I won't be chair anymore so I
won't even be obliged to go but I have a tip.  as long as those who take
the survey and say it was great but don't even weigh in on simple questions
on mailing list, are not involved with working group to have an
understanding of dynamics, do not have a basic understanding of NCPH and do
not try to understand, then I think intersessional is just good for some to
travel. For others it's a lot of work. Intersessional is not a learning
opportunity. It's a battlefield. Lets bring it on every other year than
facing it every year with only a very small number contributing and a very
large number just traveling (on both stakeholder groups).

Best

Farzaneh

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, Milton Mueller <
milton at gatech.edu>

Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; I've
replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In particular
please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency travellers). I'll put
your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when the [GNSO Council] Standing
Committee on Budget and Operations has its next call with Finance.

I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as perhaps it is
better to be silent here rather than to praise something which may not have
widespread support. This year's Intersessional was a trainwreck but I do
think this is a disaster we have to own. Last year's Intersessional was
brilliant. What was the difference? It wasn't content (as you said Rafik,
the content rarely changes), but I do think it was the participant mix. Our
'side' was too silent at this year's meeting and we didn't have enough
strong voices to counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I
think back to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and
others engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of that
this year; I cannot even think of any action items that came out of the
forum. With the suggestion circulating (at least during the Council's
Strategic Planning Session) that we may need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN
public meetings per year for budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a
Council meeting in with the GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any
support allocated to us that has made the core budget. But perhaps we could
advocate tying the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated
last year? I could see real benefits to that; on some issues, the
contracted parties are our allies...

Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the point in
this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community support,
because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here which impact us,
without tackling structural issues where the real costs lie, is the wrong
approach. But how on earth could we expect ICANN to approve some of them?
Some which 'we' submitted are genuinely embarrassing and would be an
inappropriate use of funds if approved. I have not said anything on the
main mailing list BUT ones like this, i.e. an NCUC board game
<https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2018-February/008789.html>,
should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our reputation.
Their submission was an Executive decision made without public consultation
on the discussion list. I don't want this to sound like an attack against
anyone, as that is not my intention, but I think we need to do some kind of
internal reflection before submitting requests. This request for a board
game will be seen by the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be
real, won't be approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation?

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ayden,

thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to work on
it without pressure,
about the intercessional which is a separate topic not necessarily related
to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am not that
convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The content is almost the
same every year, just with small changes of few topics. I think after 5
years or more, it is a good time to review and think about improvement. I
believe our CSG friends will be open and welcome that. Organizing it every
other year can provide that opportunity and possibility for real change.

I will review the budget and add my comments there.

Best,

Rafik

2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially because of
> insufficient planning on our part, as well as the wrong delegates being in
> attendance. But I do think the concept itself is a good one and one which
> should continue. I am happy to remove this paragraph from the document
> altogether, however, if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I
> don't think it ranks among our most pressing concerns!
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>
> wrote:
>
> I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals.
>
> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year is a
> compromise I can accept.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Ayden
>
> I’ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you on doing so
> much work to go through the budget and prepare an intelligent evaluation of
> it.
>
> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor amendments here
> and there, which I will put onto the Google doc using suggest mode.
>
> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for continued
> intersessionals. I don’t think there is consensus on that and in fact after
> the last one I heard several people who supported them question their value
> or frequency. A good middle ground might be to have them once every other
> year.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I’ll enter my comments on the doc.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com <icann at ferdeline.com>
> ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM
> *To:* ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>; Mueller,
> Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> <milton at gatech.edu>; crg at ISOC-CR.ORG;
> paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath
> <corinnecath at gmail.com> <corinnecath at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on the FY19
> budget. This took quite some time to comb through, and I might have missed
> some things. So before I share this comment on the main discussion list and
> face the inevitable wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share
> it here to get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few other
> people who might not be on this mailing list but who I think might be able
> to offer some constructive edits on its contents:
>
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your help,
>
>
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
> P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I copied and
> pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list last year re: our Reserve
> Fund comment. I hope this is okay. Thanks!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
Farzaneh

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:46 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> The community has suffered cut after cut and we have been directly
> impacted. We have next to no budget for capacity building this fiscal year,
> and CROP has become useless, as it can only be used for ICANN-sponsored
> events and ICANN refuses to provide a list of them. And we are about to
> throw away $100,000 that actually was allocated to us for an
> intersessional? This is crazy; we should improve it, make it work. And I
> definitely think we should be consulting with members to develop our
> position here.
>
> Ayden
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I made my opinion based on all the intersessionals since the beginning not
> just the last ones. I am also cautious to think that is "people" issue as
> it is usually the easy way to ignore other causes and problems.
> again I dont see any lasting outcome from intercessional including
> iceland. even a topic like Board seat election was only fixed this year and
> the work done by email and with a small group.
> I think it is a good time to review.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le ven. 24 août 2018 à 08:35, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> I think we should discuss this with the entire membership before we rule
>> it out. I think the intersessional has value. It was not the best this
>> year, but we invited the wrong people. The Iceland intersessional was
>> extremely productive. We should return to that format. And discuss who to
>> invite.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:29, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> I don't see how things can be improve. the same timeframe issue is still
>> there and make it impossible to make any substantial change in format or
>> even topics.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 24 août 2018 à 08:20, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Strategically I think it is a mistake to turn down this support. We have
>>> this resource allocated in the budget. Why not improve it for 2019? We
>>> won’t get it in 2020 if we decline the resource this fiscal year.
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:12, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>>
>>> yes holding in 2020 will give more time to rethink the format and the
>>> objectives  of the intercessional. we got to review it, holding such
>>> meeting for sake of holding makes no sense.
>>> I don't recall any lasting outcome from the intersessional and we works
>>> with CSG when needed outside that meeting.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> Le ven. 24 août 2018 à 07:55, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> As we agreed in our comment, it is better to have the intersessional
>>>> meeting every two years. today the gnso team contacted the chairs to know
>>>> their opinion about holding the intersessional Joan and i said that it
>>>> should be every two years(based on our previous deliberation with the
>>>> group)
>>>>
>>>> So this means we should discuss holding it for 2020 and no
>>>> intersessional in 2019.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>> --
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180824/37e0de84/attachment.htm>