[npoc] Fwd: More program thoughts for LA
Dear NPOC-EC Colleagues, ...a strand of emails about LA meeting preparation FYI and comments. Best, Alain ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM Subject: Re: More program thoughts for LA To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>, "MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx" < MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rob Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, " michaeladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <michaeladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, " klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>, Joseph Dejesus <joseph.dejesus@xxxxxxxxx>, " karen.lettner@xxxxxxxxx" <karen.lettner@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen De st Gery < Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx>, Steven Metalitz < met@xxxxxxx>, Kristina Rosette <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx" < excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> NPOC has been lobbying and arguing for dedicated staff support to SGs and Constituencies from the very beginning. It was music to my ears when Fadi Chehadé told me this summer that ICANN support to various Executive Committees would increase under his management. He was astounded by how much work was accomplished by ICANN volunteers without dedicated staff support (staff collaboration we get of course!) and a few in-kind tools like wikis, emails and conference services. We need to do much more but can't expect to have Executive Committees deliver the results, outcomes and impacts without *dedicated* secretariat and administrative services and policy/policy impact analysis support. So of course NPOC strongly supports in principle the proposal made by Marilyn. The devil will be in the details such as the level and allocation of dedicated resources and performance assessment. If this flies in principle, we need to have a needs analysis by Constituency and by SG and a WG coordinate the detailed request. The "new extended and improved" support package should be effective no later than July 1st 2013. So we need a pretty good detailed estimate in the 2013-2014 budget... In practice, it means we need to have the needs' analysis and the WG up and running immediately after LA. Alain On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > The BC excomm+1 will meet Monday. We are not supporting "getting to know" > sessions outside of lunch, social event. We have work to do. 2+days is an > incredible commitment for each of us. > > We need to work. > > We do support briefings of substance. > > Finally, I wish to make a proposal, which I hope Constituency Chairs will > join in: ICANN should add a professional level staff person: 1 per SG, to > support policy research and analysis, similar to the 3 prof. Staff they > fund for ALAC. It is a start/ does not replace secretariat. I hope Robin > and I might collaborate on outlining justification and gain support from > others in the SGs/constituencies. I would allocate work time to > constituencies. 3 Constituencies for CSG and 2 for NCSG. 1 staff person > for each. > > I would like to take 20 min to present joint proposal. > > If. There is support. Builds on other support. Does not replace > Secretariat support. Etc. > > M > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:26:56 > To: <MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>; < > marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; < > michaeladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>; < > klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; < > dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>; < > joseph.dejesus@xxxxxxxxx>; <karen.lettner@xxxxxxxxx>; <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; < > Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>; <met@xxxxxxx>; <krosette@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: More program thoughts for LA > > Hi Marc > > > Nice to meet you.. > > > > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 12:16 AM, Trachtenberg, Marc H. wrote: > > > > Rob, > > The IPC respectfully disagrees with Bill's and now Robin's suggestions > regarding the use of Day 1 time for inter-constituency and inter-SG > time. The NCUC and others may want to use this time as an opportunity for > their members to get acquainted and strategize, but the IPC has always seen > the main value of this meeting as interaction with ICANN staff in a smaller > group and for longer sustained periods than is possible at a full ICANN > meeting. > > > Our understanding of the meeting was it was about enhancing NCPH > engagement, which implies working together more than working the staff. > > > > There are plenty of other opportunities/options for NCUC and other > constituencies to network, connect, and internally strategize whether by > phone or in-person, but not many opportunities for the constituencies to > engage in meaningful interaction with ICANN staff. > > If that were true we'd not be suggesting that we need time for it in LA. > Alas, constituencies differ, and ours is global, diverse, changing, and > largely unfunded. Our EC has never met together, much less with NPOC's > participants, NCSG's participants, or CSG's participants. So before we > can drill down into the RAA, RPMs, enforcement, and hopefully some non-IP > issues, we need to get acquainted and ready to play. If IPC's situation is > different, let's find a time management formula that accommodates our > diverse agendas rather than arguing one should trump the other. > > > > > Frankly, we think 3 hours on day 1 is too much time for > inter-constituency meetings. Perhaps NCUC and other constituencies that > want more inter-constituency time could have their attendees arrive as > early as possible on Monday and get together Monday afternoon/evening for > that purpose so that all constituencies can derive the maximum amount of > value from the meeting. > > A minority of our known attendees---1 of 6 NCUC participants and 3 of 8 > NCSG participants---is flying in from within the US. As we will arrive at > varying times in varying conditions, a Monday night working meeting is not > really a viable option. Perhaps it'd make more sense for IPC members and > NCSG's US-based reps to fly in earlier Monday for intensive T discussions > with staff? > > > > > > Or perhaps ICANN can fund travel for that purpose at another time if it > sees value in this. > > > Alternatively, maybe we could be brought in a day earlier to meet e/o, > then we'd be bright eyed and bushy tailed for whatever conversations you'd > like... > > > > > With regards to Bill's comments below in paragraph 1, the IPC agrees that > the "extended issue briefings" on Day 1 should not be a session where ICANN > presents and the attendees listen and maybe have the opportunity to ask a > few questions at the end, but rather be an open dialogue on certain > specified topics with some information provided by ICANN. > > With regards to discussion topics for sessions on the first afternoon > reform of the RAA is of particular interest to IPC and we believe the other > NC's as well. In particular, we would like to address whether RAA > negotiations should be totally closed as they have been or whether there > could be some mechanisms for participation by the other parties affected, > or at least increased transparency through observer status, or at the very > least, frequent and detailed reporting to the non-contracted House (and > ALAC - and the rest of the world of parties affected). > > One specific new gTLD-related topic that we want to get briefed on and > have an opportunity for dialogue with ICANN staff is the issue flagged by > GAC (and included in the BC/IPC consensus points) with regards to making > sure that the new registries' representations about RPMs (especially those > that go beyond the minimum), as well as other "promises" they make in their > applications and subsequently, are actually enforceable provisions of their > contract with ICANN. > > > > These are of course among the important issues ICANN and GNSO must tackle, > and I'm sure we'd want to be part of any such conversations. How do you > feel about the other, non-IP items that have been proposed? What do the > other CSG constituencies want to talk about? > > > Revising my prior suggestions in light of the reactions, what if we > tweaked Rob's proposed Day 1 like this*: > > > Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE > > 8:30-9:00 > Breakfast and HQ Tour > > 9:00 - Noon > Individual Community Meetings - > Opportunity for communities to schedule their own issues and agendas with > particular community or staff participants. > *Within constituencies 9-11 > *Between constituencies per SG 11-12pm > > > *(If there's not broadly equal interest in this chunk of the program, > perhaps we can skip having the two SGs meet together) > > > > > Noon -12:30 > Lunch and HQ Tour > > > 12:30-14:30 > ICANN Stakeholder Engagement Dialogue (How is/can Staff addressing new > strategic expectations; dialogue with community about expectations) > *Instead of one big meeting, do separate parallel meetings between staff > and each constituency, then SG, on its particular needs and expectations > > > > 14:30-18:30 > Potential specific Briefings From ICANN Staff on Particular community > topics of interest. (opportunity to individualized issue discussions) > *Dialogues > briefings; staff briefing materials provided in advance to be > read on planes etc. > > > > 14:30-15:45 > Topic #1 *Intellectual property rights > > > > 16:00-17:15 > > Topic #2 *Human rights & civil liberties > > > > 17:15-18:30 > > Topic #3 *Outreach and global engagement strategy > > > > > > > Best, > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:06 PM > To: Robert Hoggarth > Cc: Marilyn Cade; Rafik Dammak; michaeladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: > michaeladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Trachtenberg, Marc H.; William Drake; > Alain Berranger; Klaus Stoll; Tony Holmes; David Cake; David Olive; Joseph > de Jesus; Karen Lettner; Glen de Saint Géry; Margie Milam; Metalitz, > Steven; Kristina Rosette > Subject: Re: More program thoughts for LA > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to support Bill's comments and strongly second the request for > more time for constituencies and stakeholder groups to meet together so > they can internally strategize and dive deeply into policy issues of > concern to them. One thing I've heard several times from my members about > the intercessional is that they are not interested in a series of staff > briefing sessions and would prefer to use the time to meet among ourselves, > in part because we only have occasion to meet together in person a few > times a year at most, and never a group of noncommercial users this large. > > > > Another suggestion that was just raised from a member is to consider > having the SG's brief the new CEO on our concerns regarding specific > pending policy issues. We could do it at the same time with CSG and NCSG > so the CEO could see the full range of concerns and how points directly > relate to countering points. So often these policy briefing sessions are > only from one side at a time, and so hearing from two sides at once on an > issue could be very helpful to growing everyone's understanding of the > concerns. > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:30 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > Having had a chance last night to share the draft agenda with a number of > NCSG colleagues who will be in attendance, I'd like to pass along two > program concerns. > > > > First, there was rather strong and unanimous sentiment among those > participating in the meeting that we would not prefer to have a series of > extended issue briefings as is currently indicated on v. 5 for the > 14:30-18:30 period. People would like to talk with each other, strategize, > plan, etc, as suggested previously. They would however be happy to be > given briefing papers or webinars etc to look at in advance, and then have > an integrated overview session in which questions could be asked based on > those materials. > > > > Second, Rob, do we correctly understand v. 5 to mean that our interaction > with Fadi would consist of a luncheon talk on the second day? If so, we > wonder if there's any way to allow more time together of an interactive > nature. In Toronto we had good meet and greets and a chance to raise some > concerns during our hour with the board, but it seems like people would now > like to drill down and talk through a range of ICANN issues with him and > other senior folks so they understand the thinking and motivations behind > NCSG positions. I would guess CSG could benefit from something similar, > and indeed such a conversation could even be conducted on a full house > basis so that the diversity of perspectives per top issue is fully taken on > board. > > > > For those of us with a particular interest in ICANN's strategic > positioning in the global Internet governance ecosystem, outreach, etc, > some time with Tarek and/or other relevant staff and board folks would also > be great. > > > > Thoughts.....anyone? > > > > Bill > > > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:15 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > > > Hi Rob > > > > Sorry to be tardy in responding but the timing has been bad. > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: > > > > > > Dear Marilyn, Robin, Bill, Tony, Alain, Marc, David, Klaus, Michael and > Rafik; > > > > > Thank you all for submitting names and emails of meeting participants for > the January meeting over the past two weeks - particularly while several of > you have been balancing WCIT duties. We have a few more to go. Joseph de > Jesus from the ICANN Travel Team has already begun to send out information > to identified participants so they can begin making travel arrangements. > > > > A number of you had approached me about expanding the attendance list and > I have confirmed that we will be able to absorb (both space and > budget-wise) one additional funded meeting participant per Stakeholder > Group. I hope this will resolve some internal SG challenges and > discussions that have been taking place. Thanks to you all for your > patience and flexibility on this. We had hoped to be able to accommodate > additional slots for self-funded travelers, but that will not be possible > for this first gathering. We will have to rely on the remote participation > capabilities. Thanks for your understanding. > > > > As soon as possible, please provide me with your final list of participant > names and email addresses. > > > > Also, based on feedback from several of you, I have updated the draft > agenda - now "v5". While I have tried to adjust time and schedules to > accommodate time for individual SG and Constituency meeting times, I am > still challenged regarding the specific level of interest in a number of > the proposed topics. The ICANN HQ space is somewhat flexible, but we need a > better idea of the scope of individual community breakout discussions > relative to joint (everyone) sessions to help us plan the in-house meeting > room logistics and to fit the various sessions into ICANN Staff > schedules. Your further feedback on potential briefing issues and > discussion topics will be very helpful. > > > There have been a number of views expressed on the overall purpose of this > meeting, and I appreciate the difficulty you face in trying to balance > these and come up with a program that will make everyone reasonably > content. But I think that view we're coming to in NCUC is that it would be > better if we could tilt the balance a bit more toward discussions within > the community rather than topical briefings from staff. > > > > As I've mentioned before, NCUC just had an election for its Exec. > Committee. Some of the slots were quite competitive, and the result is we > have a team of six (five of which are coming) that has never worked > together before, some of whom don't even know each other. So if you ask me > what's the most foundational needed now for NCUC to improve the > effectiveness of its engagement in ICANN, it'd be having its leadership on > the EC and representatives in other bodies like the NCSG PC spend some time > together F2F strategizing on internal organization, external relationships, > and GNSO (and as relevant, ICANN-wide) issues. Waiting to Constituency Day > in Beijing would undoubtedly diminish the level of first quarter progress, > and CDs have their own constraints anyway. I would guess that at least > some other constituencies could also use more 'us' time to similar ends.? > > > > => BTW, if NCUC could get a training session on Confluence and overview of > other relevant e-tools, that would be really helpful. Maybe NPOC and NCSG > would like the same... > > > > After we've had some real time at the constituency level, the second step > would be to have some us time at the SG level. There are again growing > pains, people who don't know each other, unanswered questions about areas > of agreement/disagreement on GNSO/ICANN issues and priorities, etc. to deal > with. And then the third might be have like an hour at the house level, > for broadly similar reasons. Here it might be useful to deal with some > basic procedural modalities for the few things we actually have to do > together, and identify any substantive issues on which greater mutual > understanding and such could be helpful. > > > > So in sum: on v. 5 you have 9-12pm on day devoted to Individual Community > Meetings. Our proposal to the group would be to build that out a bit, for > ex. to 3pm, to allow more time for meetings at the different levels and a > little tools training. Then do the Stakeholder Engagement session; and end > with an integrated staff overview of the year ahead in GNSO, substantive > issues the community will be tackling, rather than four different issue > briefings. > > > > Day 2 could remain pretty much as is, unless people think the above too > ambitious, in which case the staff overview of the year could be moved back > to lead off the second morning. > > > > What do others in the planning group think? > > > > > > > > > I have moved the various proposed issues and topics to the top of the > draft agenda document and would like you (one response per community > please) to indicate interest in addressing the various topics or listing > additional topics that are not yet on the list. Your candid responses will > help me allocate the meeting space and time allocations in the most > efficient way. > > > > I'll gather topic and agenda feedback from you all through early next week > (Tuesday 18 December) and then will produce an updated agenda (v6) to share > with the broader group of identified meeting attendees for their > information. > > > > Thanks again for your willingness to engage in this planning > effort. Please direct all concerns and any criticisms so far to me. All > kudos and positive energy should go to the Travel and HQ meeting staff for > the great support they have been providing. > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > > Robin Gross, Executive Director > > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > > w: http://www.ipjustice.org <http://www.ipjustice.org/> e: > robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive > any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without > the permission of the author. > ****************************************************************************** > Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and > cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the > Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération. CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.