[NCUC-EC] [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda

[Rafik Dammak]

Yes

Rafik
On Dec 8, 2014 5:49 PM, "Matthew Shears" <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Is the meeting going ahead?
>
> On 12/8/2014 8:02 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Joy would you be able to come to DC if we have an extra slot?
>
>  BD
>
>  On Dec 7, 2014, at 7:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi Bill
> Thanks for your note on this - just wondering what other support or
> assitance you need for this now? Please just let us know.
>
> Joy
> On 26/11/2014 9:57 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>  Thanks folks for the good suggestion.   It’s not clear we'd need to do
> this with the CSG since a) the 4 plenary slots look to be full, b) their
> forward looking agenda would be different from ours, and c) co-designing it
> this would turn into another protracted negotiation with our hydra-headed
> counterpart.  My suggestion would be that we do this amongst ourselves in
> one of the two time slots reserved for NCSG.  There are a number of other
> items we may also want to pack into those slots, e.g.
>
>  Procedural: dialogue on improving the functioning of NCSG
>
>  Substantive: discussions in various places led me to believe that people
> would like to talk about IANA and/or EWG and privacy.  CSG is not
> interested in either of these as plenary topics (although if we do the open
> fourth session I propose we could still raise some things to air views and
> see what they’ll say).
>
>  (Privacy was part of why I reach out to Rotenberg as a possibility for
> one of the three additional slots, along with Kathy K and another player
> TBD.  If we drop it probably he skips, whatever.  Or we could maybe do an
> outreach thing Wed where he’d fit.  Matt is there someone from CDT that
> might be interested in attending?)
>
>  Fadi: We need the man the morning of day 2 after he visits CSG.  I think
> it’s important that we are well prepared to lay out our concerns and seek
> concrete look me in the eye responses, otherwise he’ll fill the void and
> give us a speech like last time, when we learned that civil society is a
> bunch of crazies locked in the basement (seriously).  So really, unless we
> do it online prior, I’d suggest that the day 2 slot entail Fadi-prep.
> Which would mean packing everything else into the day one slot, and the
> constituency slots.
>
>  In any event: the participants (NCSG Councilors + 3 others from the PC,
> NCUC EC, NPOC EC) should have a dialogue about how they want to use those
> slots.
>
>  Bill
>
>  ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>  On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
>  Excellent idea - Rafik and I were just discussing the same.  Should we
> create some shareable doc to start the process?  Is there some more formal
> way of doing it within the PC?
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 11/25/2014 9:56 AM, joy wrote:
>
> Hi Bill - thanks a lot for sharing this - just wondering .... would it
> also be useful to do some kind of forward looking exercise to help
> planning? For example, mapping those new or emerging issues likely to
> impact on policy work in the 2015 as well as those spaces outside ICANN
> where SGs are planning to engage in 2015.
> Joy
>
>
> On 25/11/2014 10:02 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>  Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January.  Any
> thoughts on any of the below?
>
>  Bill
>
>  Begin forwarded message:
>
> *Subject: **Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda*
>  *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>  *Date: *November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>  *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Tony Holmes <
> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>,
> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Marilyn Cade <
> marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <
> lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, Rafik
> Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
> Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <
> brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>,
> Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
>  *To: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
>
>  Hi
>
>   On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com> wrote:
>
>  I second Bill’s thanks to Rob for this draft.
>
> I also think Bill’s suggestions re possible topics for the Monday AM
> sessions make sense.  Would be interested in others’ views.
>
>
>  Yes, please
>
>
> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see addressed in the
> “plenary” (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would be New gTLDs, which should
> include preparation for the AOC review as well as the other initiatives
> staff is undertaking.
>
>
> I don’t think EWG is a great topic for this meeting.  GNSO review
> certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start having that
> discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue between Bill and Tony
> earlier today.
>
>
>  Ok, so if I’m remembering the conversation correctly, the items
> suggested so far by more than one SG would be
>
>  1. Accountability
> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences on board,
> GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit a wall the remaining
> time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO dynamics, e.g. role of the Council
> in relation to the GNSO community, contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
>
>  And options suggested by one SG include
>
>  *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
>
>
> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the possibility
> (likelihood?) that the House will want to “revisit” on Tuesday one or more
> of the topics first broached on Monday.  For example, we might reach
> agreement in principle on something and ask a subgroup to draft a statement
> for discussion the next day.  In other words, best to frontload the plenary
> topics a bit so there is some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.
>
>
>  3 morning coffee thoughts:
>
>  *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we’ll have chances
> to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
>
>  *To leave time for Steve’s flexibility and accommodate any unfinished
> conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not leave the fourth slot
> unprogrammed, like a big AOB?  It’s only 90 minutes, and an open discussion
> opportunity would allow for reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody
> goes away feeling like they didn’t get to raise something they care about.
> Would be an integrative way to end the two days.
>
>  *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items where
> there’s broad agreement and ease into topics that might be more difficult
> after people have been together a bit, which might suggest proceeding 1, 2,
> 3 above => 4 open/loose ends discussion.
>
>  Thoughts?
>
>  Other bits:
>
>  *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG.  Personally, I
> would not designate them as ‘observers’, if we are going to invite someone
> they shouldn’t be somehow marked as different and should be able to
> participate fully like anyone else.
>
>  *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let people chat
> on the first day, and would strongly encourage people to sit intermingled
> rather than self-segregated into NCSG and CSG tables.  On the second day,
> we could do a) Larry; b) a less familiar-to-all beltway denizen, e.g. a
> Congressional or think tank poobah; or c) Fadi, who will have just met
> separately with the two SGs and might helpfully address us on an
> integrative basis thereafter.  I guess one also could argue it’d be  sort
> of bad form to not invite him to address us as group, no?
>
>  *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in Fadi’s Day 2
> discussions with the SGs so he can get more familiar with our respective
> concerns.
>
>  *”Day 3”: I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any sort of
> outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or constituency basis, if so I’d
> think we should do the same and would need to factor that into our planning
> soon as it could affect travel schedules etc.
>
>  Thanks
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> ]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
> *To:* Robert Hoggarth
> *Cc:* Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be; Marilyn Cade;
> lori.schulman at ascd.org; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, Steven; Rafik Dammak;
> Jimson Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; Stefania
> Milan; William Drake
> *Subject:* Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>
> Hello
>
>  Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
>
>  The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>
>  Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to lead
> with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN environment on which
> non-contracted would have broadly similar concerns, e.g.
> expansion/diversification of contracted parties and possible GNSO
> implications; and then do the second one on our intra-house dynamics and
> cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections etc.  In other words, lead off with
> shared stuff to get everyone acclimated and then ease into items on which
> we’ve struggled a bit?
>
>  Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like we
> all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic.  If I
> understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in talking about
> IANA stewardship in this context.  If so, perhaps EWG?  Or would we want to
> discuss the GNSO Review and structural issues in more detail?
>
>  I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways. We
> also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the Day 2
> slots, after folks have been spending time together and are warmed up etc…
>
>  Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we’d want more casual conversation
> opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be good, a beltway
> luminary of some sort?
>
>  Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local
> community members could join.  As discussed, alternative considerations
> would be keeping the group size reasonably conversational and not being
> asymmetric.  Could we compromise on adding two heads per house?
>
>  I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn’t know about the
> meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available.  I agree it’d be
> good to have him there so folks who aren’t could get acquainted.
>
>  Also, going forward, two process requests:
>
>  *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc,
> Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu.  She is copied here.
>
>  *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch, I don’t
> need copies of every message in both my accounts.
>
>  thanks much
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20141208/18f0460f/attachment.html>