[NCSG-PC] [Suggestion] Additional Budgetary Request - NCSG PC Strategic Planning Session

Mon Jan 15 12:56:41 EET 2018

Hello Tatiana,

I totally agree with your analysis and Rafik's suggestion.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 15 January 2018 at 10:52, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:

> 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>:
>
>> 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
>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc <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> 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
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd

*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/
<http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180115/ddad6753/attachment.htm>