[NCUC-DISCUSS] Community budget request 2017
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sat Feb 13 13:38:26 CET 2016
+1
On 11-Feb-16 21:58, farzaneh badii wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
> *Sent*: Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:10 PM
> *To*: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net
> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
> *Cc*: "Matt Shears" <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>,
> "NCUC-discuss" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list