[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Event News

[William Drake]

Hi

On May 25, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU> wrote:

> I don't want to lose sight of the fact, though, that we're not an educational group. We are not ICANN's programming arm. We're advocates. ICANN Meetings present some of our best opportunities to advocate for our positions. Our group is deeply and passionately divided on the closed / open question. While it might be entertaining for some to watch Milton and Kathy tear into each other with articulate and well developed points of view on  open / closed, I'm not sure that accomplishes much for those whom we are representing. 

I guess I don't agree that an event on an important policy matter the board and GAC will be taking up at the meeting, one that's sharply divided people inside and outside the ICANN bubble, would by definition be merely educational and unrelated to advocacy.  Nor was the idea to feature any in-house tearing into each other; anyway Milton said at dinner here last night he's not coming to Durban, not sure about Kathy.  But ok, duly noted.
> 
> In that light, might I suggest as an alternate topic  akin to "The Current State of Multistakeholderism in ICANN."
> 
> The rejection of our reconsideration review request  has stimulated a lot of discussion across various ICANN communities. There are threads on the Registry and NTAG lists, for example, that are extremely supportive of our procedural position. Could this not be an opportunity for us to reach out to some of those who are supportive in other communities, see if they'll pop on a panel for a half hour and have an honest discussion about where we are on MS and where we may be headed? Could this not be an opportunity to demonstrate to the Board the breadth of opposition to the BGC decision and, as well,  cultivate our cross community ties?

One imagines this matter will still be live in July and discussed in Durban.  It's not obvious to me that the optimal way to address it is an NCUC workshop with panelists etc., as opposed to a special cross-community meeting with the BGC, or even our standard NCSG-Board meeting for that matter.  But if there's greater member interest in going this route or some rather than in doing closed generics, ok we could try.  Let's hear from more folks.

Do bear in mind, part of why I was suggesting building off of the IGF event is that the workshop proposal is due tomorrow,

On May 20, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org> wrote:

>  ALL the information requested not later, rather sooner, than 27 May 2012.

so even if we can delay a few days, any submission should happen this week.  A strong push would thus be needed to get consensus and then provide answers to the following,
> Session Title,
> Overview,
> What is the session about? Who is the audience? Speakers?
> ·       Agenda
> • a breakdown of topics to be discussed
> • a list of speakers/panellists split up according to relevant subject
> • an explanation of the session’s goals and expected outcomes
> • hyperlinks to relevant documentation.
>  
> I can give you a Wiki link for the agenda so that you can add to that as you go along. The link will be published on the main schedule page, but gives you the possibility to fill in the details as you confirm speakers etc. You, or someone you designate  will also be given the permission to edit the agenda as you go along.
> 
> The objective is to ensure that community leaders and participants, especially remote participants, are able to evaluate whether or not this is a session they wish to attend, so the more information you can give about it the better.
> Preferred  Time – please state
> Avoid overlapping regularly scheduled breaks (see below). 
> 
> Estimated Number of Attendees – (very important to optimize the space)
> Type of set-up – remember we will do our best to provide your request but cannot guarantee anything because it depends on the availability of the conference center rooms



 And then of course, there's the question of how this particular approach would be viewed when staff are deciding on the allocation of workshop slots and beyond, but we can throw those dice and see…

> On May 26, 2013, at 3:56 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Do you have a link to the workshops?  I'm sure everybody else here
>> knows full well where to find them . . .

The proposals are all at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/view-proposals

> I am also talking with staff about securing a space within the main ICANN Durban program for an NCUC workshop.  A priori, on both substantive and effort optimization grounds I'm inclined to do another prequel, this one to our IGF Bali workshop, The Debate on ‘Closed’ Generic Top Level Domains  http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=253.
>> 
>> You want to get a jump on this issue?  I recommend the angle of
>> considering how this proposal integrates with the FNC definition of
>> the Internet, which the CNRI has advocated for the WSIS in general.

Thanks.  Ok, so there's another proposal for collective consideration…

Other views?

Best,

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130526/909b75c5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss