[NCUC-EC] [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Mon Dec 8 09:49:19 CET 2014
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 <mailto: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 <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>>>>> *Date: *November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>>>>>>> *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Tony Holmes
>>>>>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Elisa Cooper
>>>>>>> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Marilyn Cade
>>>>>>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>,
>>>>>>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>"
>>>>>>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>,
>>>>>>> Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>,
>>>>>>> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Jimson Olufuye
>>>>>>> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>,
>>>>>>> Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>, Brenda Brewer
>>>>>>> <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>,
>>>>>>> Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, Stefania Milan
>>>>>>> <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, William
>>>>>>> Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>>>>> *To: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto: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]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
>>>>>>>> *To:*Robert Hoggarth
>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper;rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>>>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Marilyn
>>>>>>>> Cade;lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>. She is
>>>>>>>> copied here.
>>>>>>>> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>>>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don’t need copies of every
>>>>>>>> message in both my accounts.
>>>>>>>> thanks much
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth
>>>>>>>> <robert.hoggarth at icann.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure
>>>>>>>> (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting. Per our
>>>>>>>> discussion this week, please share and discuss it with
>>>>>>>> your individual communities as you see fit. If our
>>>>>>>> previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be
>>>>>>>> the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final
>>>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit
>>>>>>>> suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of
>>>>>>>> the next week.
>>>>>>>> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the
>>>>>>>> date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make
>>>>>>>> some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
>>>>>>>> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and
>>>>>>>> Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to
>>>>>>>> assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas
>>>>>>>> during the course of the events that week.
>>>>>>>> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning
>>>>>>>> timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the
>>>>>>>> 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY
>>>>>>>> need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate
>>>>>>>> names as soon as possible so that we can make sure that
>>>>>>>> all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel
>>>>>>>> schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S.
>>>>>>>> for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as
>>>>>>>> possible so that we can maximize the use of our support
>>>>>>>> resources for the meeting.
>>>>>>>> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning
>>>>>>>> effort!
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> mshears at cdt.org
>>>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ***********************************************
>
--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20141208/03bc6ef9/attachment.html>
More information about the NCUC-EC
mailing list