[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: [GNSO-SG-C-Leadership] Feedback Requested: How We Meet Community Group

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

Agreed, Rafik.

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.


Em sex., 14 de fev. de 2025 às 04:19, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
escreveu:

> thanks Pedro,
> we need to summarize the response then.  For the meeting frequency, we can
> go with 2 F2F and raise the point about the impact of virtual meetings.
>
> Regarding Meeting Locations and Purposes:
> 1- we are in favor
> 2- we are not in favor
> 3- the proposal impact is unclear and how it will be implemented
> 4- meeting reduction (a big change that requires buy-in in the list
> otherwise I will leave that blank)
> 5- we are not in favor
> 6- need to check impact such SPS GNSO council meeting or NCPH meeting
> 7- conditional for having 2 F2F meetings  and virtual meeting is to review
> the approach for virtual meeting to take into account the challenges
>
> Regarding Meeting Format, Logistics & Funding Sources
> 1- we are in favor
> 2- concern about the feasibility and how this will be implemented by the
> community
> 3- depends how much it impacts remote participation and the experience.
> 4- concerns about local attendance experience.
> 5- it is unclear how the block schedule can be revisited, requires more
> details
> 6- no position
> 7- we are in favor for looking for sponsorship and support
> 8- we are not in favor
>
> Regarding Travel-Related Matters
> 1- requires assessment of the impact in terms of support and meeting staff.
> 2- we are not in favor
>
> @everyone last chance to send your input as the deadline is today, let me
> know if you have concern about responses above.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> Le mer. 12 févr. 2025 à 05:40, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> I think there is already a high level of agreement among us three, at
>> least. The biggest divergence seems to be around having one online meeting
>> a year (I think just reducing it from 3 to 2 and improving the online
>> decentralized methodology of work is better).
>>
>> And I'd still get back to my first suggestion, reg: possible downgrade
>> regarding what hotels ICANN chooses, even if it is not popular (but, then
>> again, nice to have vs. necessary to have). Maybe something a bit less
>> luxurious, while still very comfortable, would already have a substantial
>> impact, but ICANN should look a bit more around that so this could be
>> objectively evaluated since it could heavily affect the "experience"
>> criteria mentioned in the documents.
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
>> Researcher
>> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
>> Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
>> <https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
>> YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
>> Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
>> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
>> mistake, please reply informing it.
>>
>>
>> Em ter., 11 de fev. de 2025 às 03:32, Rafik Dammak via NCSG-EC <
>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> escreveu:
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> regarding Meeting Locations and Purposes:
>>> 1- I think #1 is common sense practice about deciding and planning
>>> earlier to control cost,
>>> 2- I am not in favor of #2, the risk is there will be recurring
>>> countries with challenges for parts of the community to attend i.e.g access
>>> to visa etc. I think IETF does or did that and it is not a good example
>>> IMHO of diversity.
>>> 3- #3 proposal impact is unclear and how it will be implemented .e.g are
>>> we will visit some regions more than others within the 5 years time frame?
>>> 4- I know it can be almost a taboo but we really should question having
>>> 3 meetings per year , it is a non negligible time commitment and I believe
>>> it is a hindrance for many to participate.
>>> 5- While it can bring some cost reduction regarding hotels and venues,
>>> it doesn't change the impact on attendees and based on policy
>>> forum examples, it will require overhaul of agenda and schedule. it can
>>> also impact the possibility of having the NCPH day meeting
>>> 6- I think that makes sense as an approach as we are trying for an NCPH
>>> meeting but it can possibly impact GNSO council SPS or WGs F2F (I didn't
>>> hear about any since EPDP on RDS)?
>>> 7- if it is a virtual meeting in the same format as during the pandemic
>>> it might work fine,  with challenges but can be handled better than full
>>> remote participation as-is now. It will be kind of interessional.
>>>
>>> regarding Meeting Format, Logistics & Funding Sources
>>> 1- I think that is already ongoing. I think such a constraint will
>>> encourage everyone org and community to rethink what the sessions priority.
>>> 2- if that is targeting all sessions, setting criteria and deciding will
>>> be impossible. We usually have a challenge to agree on the community
>>> session. I think it is inapplicable but if it is about some informational
>>> session mostly proposed by ICANN staff, it might be worthy to explore.
>>> 3- depends how much it impacts remote participation and the experience.
>>> 4- reducing interpretation and scribing, I think that can impact local
>>> attendance experience.
>>> 5- not sure how the block schedule can be revisited, GNSO already uses
>>> the weekend (well we used saturday and sunday previously). it might be more
>>> related to other parts of the community?
>>> 6- I understand that reduction of networking receptions is already
>>> implemented?
>>> 7- that can be explored but as noted requires much effort to work with
>>> local hosts and sponsors. I think it is typical of any conference
>>> 8- we can say to that proposal in many languages
>>>
>>> Regarding Travel-Related Matters
>>> 1- I think it is already being implemented and we need to see the impact
>>> in terms of support and meeting staff.
>>> 2- this is a pandora box : who will decide who should attend and it will
>>> create more tension within the community. I highly doubt if that is
>>> effective or good usage of community time.
>>>
>>> regarding metrics.
>>> 1- average is not a good metric and doesn't give a good idea about
>>> distribution of cost
>>> 2- for the rest I guess they are fine to set
>>>
>>> We need to consolidate and get a common position. At least we can agree
>>> on what is no-go for us.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 11 févr. 2025 à 12:57, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> *A. Meeting Locations & Purposes*
>>>> I personally support #7. On #1, what I don't see is possible impact of
>>>> booking flights "well in advance" can cause to overall cost due to the risk
>>>> of closer-to-date changes
>>>>
>>>> *B. Meeting Format, Logistics & Funding Sources*
>>>> I find #1 and #2 interesting if done together.
>>>>
>>>> *C. Travel-Related Matters*
>>>> No to the options provided.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warmly,
>>>> Tomslin
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, 12:32 Rafik Dammak via NCSG-EC, <
>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> there is some update and request for input on "How to meet". We should
>>>>> review the different options proposed in the strawman document.
>>>>> I will share this later with larger NCSG membership and adding some
>>>>> context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> De : DiBiase, Gregory via GNSO-SG-C-Leadership <
>>>>> gnso-sg-c-leadership at icann.org>
>>>>> Date: sam. 18 janv. 2025 à 00:53
>>>>> Subject: [GNSO-SG-C-Leadership] Feedback Requested: How We Meet
>>>>> Community Group
>>>>> To: gnso-sg-c-leadership at icann.org <gnso-sg-c-leadership at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    - *Attachments protected by Amazon: *
>>>>>    - Updated Cost Data Related To ICANN Pu...copy.pdf
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/fceed8c9-d3da-417d-aa8d-41514592e7f0> |
>>>>>
>>>>>    - How We Meet - Summary of Input from C...copy.pdf
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/3c682e35-ece6-4488-826b-6517b486832b> |
>>>>>
>>>>>    - 2024 Cost Analysis of ICANN Travel & ...copy.pdf
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/0e35facb-ecde-44e8-8d07-cc01120f2420> |
>>>>>
>>>>>    - 2022 - 2024 Cost Analysis of ICANN In...copy.pdf
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/483dcc57-02b6-4c29-85a3-cce7bef43c46> |
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Final - Charter for the Community Gro...tegy.pdf
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/e8ebf9cf-04c4-4fcc-8f90-4a16faef4b6a> |
>>>>>
>>>>>    - DRAFT - How We Meet Community Group R...Docs.pdf
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/36b9c423-0e0f-446c-8325-34689df8deb9> |
>>>>>
>>>>>    - ICANN
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/865639da-f3f1-4545-a8f4-79fd73d55a9d> |
>>>>>
>>>>>    - ATT00001.txt
>>>>>    <https://us-east-1.secure-attach.amazon.com/33f1c678-96e1-4015-8dfb-f02f5c2e62ff/89a83194-2f45-4aaa-8be7-722c893a9aad> |
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon has replaced the attachments in this email with download links.
>>>>> Downloads will be available until February 16, 2025, 15:53 (UTC+00:00). Tell
>>>>> us what you think
>>>>> <https://amazonexteu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ehuz6zGo8YnsRKK>
>>>>> For more information click here
>>>>> <https://docs.secure-attach.amazon.com/guide>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear SG/C Chairs,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am hoping for your help gathering feedback on ICANN’s proposals for
>>>>> “How We Meet” (a.k.a. how to make ICANN’s meetings more cost effective).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As GNSO Chair, I’ve been tasked with gathering feedback on potential
>>>>> recommendations that will go out to the Community for public comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached are a number of documents breaking down the cost of ICANN
>>>>> meetings, but I think the most pertinent is one titled “How We Meet
>>>>> Community Group Report”. ICANN has labeled this document as a “draft
>>>>> strawman proposal” but it’s really a menu of options for reducing cost. I
>>>>> think a good first step is for each SG/C to review these options and
>>>>> provide feedback on:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. What options are missing?
>>>>>    2. What options are unacceptable/problematic? (i.e., should not be
>>>>>    put out for public comment).
>>>>>    3. Do you have more granular feedback on the options provided?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this could give me a starting point for giving feedback to
>>>>> ICANN. I have already flagged to ICANN that the GNSO is a diverse body and
>>>>> will likely have disagreements, so a broader public comment on the
>>>>> “strawman” will be necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide any other thoughts you may have as this group starts
>>>>> their work.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank You!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Alperen Eken via How-we-meet-2025 <how-we-meet-2025 at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 7, 2025 1:46 PM
>>>>> *To:* how-we-meet-2025 at icann.org
>>>>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [How-We-Meet-2025] Agenda and Documents -
>>>>> Meeting #1 - How We Meet Community Group
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
>>>>> know the content is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy New Year! I hope this message finds you well and that you’ve had
>>>>> a wonderful start to 2025.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Next week, we will hold our first meeting to discuss updates to the
>>>>> ICANN Meetings Strategy. This meeting is scheduled for:
>>>>> Date: 13 January 2024
>>>>> Time: 1700-1800 UTC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We’re looking forward to your participation and valuable
>>>>> contributions. Please find attached the meeting agenda, some documents we
>>>>> prepared for this group, and background documents that were previously
>>>>> shared with SOAC Chairs:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. Meeting invitation ICS file
>>>>>    2. Agenda
>>>>>    3. Final - Charter for the Community Group for the Meeting Strategy
>>>>>    4. Draft - How We Meet Community Group Report
>>>>>
>>>>> Background Documents:
>>>>>
>>>>>    5. How We Meet - Summary of Input from Community Groups
>>>>>    6. Updated Cost Data Related to ICANN Public Meetings
>>>>>    7. 2024 Cost Analysis of ICANN Travel & Meetings
>>>>>    8. 2022 – 2024 Cost Analysis of ICANN Intersessional Meetings
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are aware that there are a lot of materials, therefore we are
>>>>> keeping a drive folder for you where you can find all these documents,
>>>>> meeting agendas, and notes of our future meetings in addition to any
>>>>> document that we will be collaborating on. Here is the link:
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-IGp5C4QAZjj5OJlkYRARnpsg2HBgtV_?usp=drive_link
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your input is essential as we will be working within a tight timeline.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will serve as the project manager for this work, if you have any
>>>>> questions, additional topics to propose for the agenda, or any other issue
>>>>> please feel free to reach out at alperen.eken at icann.org .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We appreciate your participation and look forward to seeing everyone
>>>>> at the meeting!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alp Eken
>>>>>
>>>>> Policy Development Support Senior Specialist
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> GNSO-SG-C-Leadership mailing list -- gnso-sg-c-leadership at icann.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-sg-c-leadership-leave at icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration,
>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20250214/ac9e476c/attachment-0001.htm>