[NCSG-PC] Intersessional/no meeting for 2019, but possibility to meet in 2020
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Fri Aug 24 15:17:49 EEST 2018
(I realized after I pushed send that I was conflating the two events
there....but I do think it was useful)
SP
On 2018-08-24 08:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I have to say that the last intercessional was excellent, and we got a
> lot done. Earlier ones had been much less successful, and I think
> coloured our responses. I know we are all busy, but I think we are
> asking for trouble in the GNSO review if we lose the momentum
> established under Heather's chairmanship (I would even perhaps invite
> her back to chair, as she invited Jonathan).
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2018-08-24 04:50, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There was also an extensive discussion on the Google Doc when the
>> comment was drafted, and there was significant support from NCSG
>> members for an annual intersessional. Yes, there were some objections
>> raised, which is why our comment was silent on the future of the
>> intersessional. I do note that participation is optional and no one
>> is forced to attend the intersessional if they do not consider it to
>> be a productive use of their time.
>>
>>> Can we ask for a transfer? since this is a part of the core budget
>>> it might be possible.
>>
>> That won’t happen.
>>
>> What will happen is this $100,000 that won’t be spent will be
>> presented as an operational efficiency, as though ICANN staff have
>> made some great sacrifice to replenish the reserve fund. We saw that
>> happen with the cuts to CROP; it is being presented as though the
>> spend on staff travel has decreased, when really, a good chunk of the
>> decrease in spending has come from a reduction in community support.
>>
>> No intersessional won’t stop the BC or IPC from lobbying ICANN staff;
>> they are often in DC or Los Angeles. It will hurt the NCSG however.
>>
>> I would oppose an intersessional that was anything like this year’s
>> one; we need to think carefully about who we are inviting, and not
>> just inviting those in leadership positions. I think we should be
>> allocating the 21 slots as a stakeholder group and bringing in the
>> right max of active participants.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 06:03, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>> Cc: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>, Milton
>>> Mueller <milton at gatech.edu <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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]
>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM
>>>>>> *To:* ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>; Mueller, Milton L
>>>>>> <milton at gatech.edu> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>;
>>>>>> crg at ISOC-CR.ORG <mailto:crg at ISOC-CR.ORG>;
>>>>>> paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM
>>>>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM>; Corinne
>>>>>> Cath <corinnecath at gmail.com> <mailto: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 list
>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a59b993c/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list