[NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session
Dr. Tatiana Tropina
t.tropina at mpicc.de
Mon Jan 15 12:52:16 EET 2018
Hi all,
Ayden, thanks for the proposal. However, I can support each and every of
Rafik's arguments. Especially about using travel as incentive and
anything about what kind of time and efforts and logistics two-days
travel entails. I am for trying on-line meeting and if it doesn't work
and there is a real need for F2F (which I am not convinced of) --
contemplating it. However, with all this, I don't think it's a PC
decision. It's EC's remit, so this should be discussed there.
Cheers,
Tanya
On 15/01/18 02:39, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the proposal.
> As I stated before, I am not in favor of this request. I will try to
> elaborate more and respond to some arguments. In term of procedure,
> ABRs is more in the remit of EC and FC, the proposal would have to go
> through them.
>
> * I heard the argument several times about having short meetings may
> be more bearable than long ones. however, it seems not taking into
> consideration that 2 days meetings would include also 2 days
> traveling ( regardless a short or long itinerary). I will also
> highlight that in our last community support comment, we were
> suggesting that we should arrive earlier. I guess people also need
> to recuperate after a travel regardless if it is held during a
> weekend or not. I am not going to talk about the time needed prior
> to such meeting to get a visa even if we skip the USA as location.
> I understand there are personal preferences but I think we need to
> assess in term of fairness and inclusivity.
> * I am concerned about the argument to use travel as an
> incentive for 2 reasons. it is giving the impression that
> involvement in ICANN and NCSG equals traveling and so dismissing
> the real intercessional work that is done most of the time. It is
> also not scalable neither sustainable in long term and we had
> examples of supported travelers who never became active or not as
> expected.
> * there is no real risk of "prying eyes" if the meeting is closed
> and I guess that is the intent. if there is remote participation,
> we can check who access to AC or phone bridge but I guess the
> recording will be public anyway.
> * if it is about PC strategical planning, I am not sure how it can
> be a different set of attendees in particular for the case of
> councilors. if it is for the wider NCSG, I guess that will still
> include officers since they will are supposed to implement such
> planning and likely attending the other meeting.
> * there are a non-negligible logistics and planning for any meeting.
> I participated in intersessional planning and currently in a
> strategical council meeting. It is time-consuming and needs works,
> it doesn't happen just like that. in fact, I am concerned about
> the current intersessional in term of NCSG readiness (not sure of
> co-chairs already started to prepare for their sessions and we are
> just 2 weeks away). We need to be mindful of how to spend our
> scare time and attention.
>
>
> Professionalization means using effectively and efficiently existing
> resources and not asking for more for sake of doing it. I am more in
> favor to think this carefully and create mechanisms to get input about
> strategy and planning and not just think everything in term of
> meetings. I would support the idea made by Farzaneh to start first
> with an online meeting to see how it works and what we can do concretely.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-15 7:43 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
> Hi Farell,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the additional budgetary request so
> thoroughly. I wanted to take a few moments to expand upon my
> thinking as to why I believe this should be separate to other
> events like the Intersessional.
>
> Firstly, it is of course true that we have a few different
> sessions like this taking place. As you rightly mentioned we have
> the two-day Intersessional, and we have the new, three-day GNSO
> Council Strategic Planning Session. This year these two sessions
> have been blended together, creating a five-day time commitment
> for participants.
>
> To add on to this our Policy Committee session would make it a
> seven-day meeting. I don't know about you, but I know from my own
> experience at ICANN meetings that I become burnt out after five
> days. If we made this meeting longer it could become less effective.
>
> There is also the question of audience, and there are two prongs
> here. One, we want to have a strategy session away from prying
> eyes. To do it at roughly the same time as we have colleagues from
> the contracted and non-contracted parties (on Council) or with our
> colleagues from the Commercial Stakeholders Group (Intersessional)
> could prove disadvantageous. Two, and perhaps more importantly,
> the audience we invite to the Intersessional and to the Council
> Strategic Planning Session should necessarily be different.
>
> As we grow and professionalise the NCSG we need to share the
> burden of work better. In time I imagine the participant balance
> for these three sessions would be different. When we blend
> meetings together the organisation allocates less resources to
> support travel, and we find ourselves, partly out of necessity,
> having to invite the same voices to each. We might want to rethink
> this; we do not necessarily need the same participants, but could
> see this session as an individual team 'retreat' (in a few years
> time I hope we can add on a separate Campaigns Strategic Planning
> Session, when we have an Advocacy Committee or something like
> that). It sustains the momentum of our work. It gives another
> 'carrot' to our members to become involved in our activities in a
> more specialised capacity.
>
> I think it is also worth noting that, in the case of the
> Intersessional, four out of the last five Intersessionals have
> been held in the United States, because three-quarters of the
> delegates are from the US. Given our membership is more diverse
> and many of our members have obstacles obtaining US visas,
> piggybacking onto a meeting that is typically held Stateside might
> not work for us.
>
> Finally, for some of us, it is easier to take 2 days off than it
> is 5 or 7. When we host a meeting independent to others we have
> total flexibility over the dates and the location (within reason).
> We could, for instance, host this session over a weekend — that
> might make it easier for our volunteers with families, jobs, or
> other non-ICANN participants to be able to participate — or in a
> location where we are confident the majority of the participants
> will have no obstacles traveling to, be that because of distance
> or visas.
>
> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
>
> Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request
>> - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session
>> Local Time: 14 January 2018 9:18 PM
>> UTC Time: 14 January 2018 20:18
>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>
>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>> Hello Ayden,
>>
>> This is a very good idea. I am in full support of it and as you
>> said the staff should be minimal to avoid a high increase in budget.
>>
>> There are another strategic meetings such as the intercessional
>> where many members of the PC already participate. Can we just
>> propose to colocate both and conduct this PC strategic after or
>> before? It will cost only additional days for accomodation for
>> those who already participate to the intercessional and travel
>> tickets for the remaining members, instead of a complete new
>> logistic plan !
>>
>> Le dim. 14 janv. 2018 à 14:47, Ayden Férdeline
>> <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> I have drafted an additional budgetary request that I suggest
>> we submit. It is on Google Docs here
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D_pp_PFOnx6ZiK3qX9CuLanAraIHIyOAHG1JYPJciOY/edit?usp=sharing> and
>> edits are welcomed, of course. I'm not sure whether we as the
>> PC can submit this or if we should escalate it (if we support
>> the proposal) to the NCSG EC to submit instead? Matters of
>> process aside, the general gist of the proposal is as follows:
>>
>> /The NCSG Policy Committee is growing in activity, responding
>> to more requests for public comment than ever before in its
>> history. To sustain this momentum, the NCSG Policy Committee
>> would like to request support to conduct a two-day,
>> face-to-face planning session during FY19. Such a session
>> would allow the Officers of the NCSG Policy Committee to
>> develop an appropriate and ambitious work plan for the year
>> ahead, to negotiate and determine NCSG positions on pressing
>> issues, and, for the first time, to draft a five-year
>> strategic plan for the Policy Committee’s activities. This is
>> a session which we would like to hold outside of the setting
>> of a traditional ICANN meeting. While the Policy Committee
>> does meet during ICANN meetings, given our Officers
>> involvement in other working groups and on the GNSO Council,
>> there is never enough time to think about our more long-term
>> objectives. This session would allow us to develop a work
>> plan for both the next 12 months, and at a higher level, for
>> the next five years, and is best suited to being held in
>> isolation away from the pressures of our other ICANN
>> commitments. This session would be largely self-organised
>> with minimal staff support required./
>>
>> The deadline for submitting additional budgetary requests is
>> 31 January, so I would like to suggest that we add this to
>> the agenda for our upcoming policy call to discuss further.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ayden
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <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/20180115/51d08c90/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list