[NCUC-DISCUSS] Community budget request 2017

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Ed,

"Now a seminar on how to write public comments, perhaps one on how to be
effective in working groups...IMHO these types of seminars should be our
priority. "

I think this is a very good idea. It could be in a real workshop format
where we can have mock Working Groups  and give tips on how to get engaged
with policymaking.




On 11 February 2016 at 19:47, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> For those who want to do the work on a future policy conference I think
> Bill has outlined a good way forward. The 2017 date makes sense as do the
> reasons to proceed. Frankly, one of my concerns was that with Bill doing
> his NomCom service we would lose a man who in past conferences have done
> the work of five others. It's a lot of work to do one of these things but
> if there is the will and volunteers to do one, and it won't detract from
> our GNSO work, it's all good.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:10 PM
> *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> *Cc*: "Matt Shears" <mshears at cdt.org>, "NCUC-discuss" <
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Community budget request 2017
>
> Hi
>
> I share Ed’s concern that we are underrepresented in many of work areas of
> GNSO policy, and agree that rectifying that should be a priority. At the
> same time, it is not completely evident that there’s a zero sum trade-off
> here. We may have members who’d be disinclined to fill the GNSO gaps
> anyway, for various reasons, but who would be more prepared to put some
> time into a conference. And it could be that getting engaged in something
> like this would subsequently lead to dipping toes into the GNSO work…as
> Stefania noted, she followed this path from conference to the Council.
>
> The amount of work involved varies depending on the ambitions and the
> extent to which we seek to engage other parts of the community and bridge
> build. The 2014 Singapore conference had that as an explicit design goal
> and so involved a significant amount of coordinating and schmoozing. It
> paid off to the extent that we had a packed room of 130+ audience members
> who stayed for eight hours and it helped NCUC’s standing, but it took time.
> So I wouldn’t dismiss the potential benefits, or the costs.
>
> So I’d try to determine a) what unique and compelling substantive topic(s)
> might such a meeting explore, most likely at M 1 of 2017; b) would the
> conference be optimized for NCUC doing its own thing, or with
> cross-community relations in mind; and c) is there a core group of folks
> who would have the bandwidth to see it through, without detracting from
> GNSO work. If there are good answers on all these fronts, I suspect staff
> would be happy to allocate the necessary resources, budget permitting.
>
> Bill
>
> > On Feb 11, 2016, at 16:08, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to be the contrarian here.
> >
> > We are starting several highly time intensive PDP's on core issues to
> our community such as WHO2 and RPM reviews. We are in the middle of a GNSO
> restructuring. Accountability continues with work stream 2, a work stream
> where many of our core issues such as transparency and human rights are at
> issue. Tens of public comments come and go with nary a contribution from
> the noncommercial community. Two close next week and I don't believe we
> have anyone working on them.
> >
> > Policy conferences are nice but I'd suggest they are not a core function
> of the NCUC. They take time and resources to organise, two commodities we
> don't have a lot of right now.
> >
> > If folks want to go down this road I'd suggest we need to partner with a
> NGO that has the bandwidth and money to organise such an event. We
> certainly can provide the policy expertise and panelists, for example, if
> they could provide the organisational man/woman power. I also question
> whether these should be held at ICANN meetings. First, the new meeting
> strategy virtually precludes having these at the 4 day B meeting. Second,
> with all that is going on who has the time at the meetings to attend or
> participate in a policy conference? Events are already scheduled on the
> days preceding the meetings themselves that many of us need to attend.
> >
> > Now a seminar on how to write public comments, perhaps one on how to be
> effective in working groups...IMHO these types of seminars should be our
> priority. Our colleagues in other groups are fighting for policy wins, not
> conducting policy seminars. I'd suggest we should focus on doing the same.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 11 Feb 2016, at 13:16, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to support - if it is not to late - an idea that I believe
> Farzi/Rafik floated some time ago - that of a Policy Conference.
> >>
> >> Apparently we have done these in the past - San Francisco, Toronto and
> Singapore
> >>
> >> I would proprose a one or two-day Policy Conference with three specific
> components/goals: 1) deep dives with invited experts into priority and/or
> new policy areas; 2) working sessions to coordinate on/progress PDPs and
> other policy priorities; 3) assessment of progress and planning on policy
> priorities generally.
> >>
> >> I see this as a great opportunity to come together and drive policy
> work forward (there is no substitute for F2F), build capacity among those
> interested in policy work and getting more involved, outreach to experts
> from other parts of the community, etc.
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>


-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160211/36392661/attachment-0002.html>