[NCUC-EC] PLEASE RESPOND TODAY IF POSSIBLE: NCPH Intersessional Planning call on Friday, July 18th at 15:00 UTC

[William Drake]

So nobody wants to join the call, is that right?

On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill
> I have filled in the doodle.  
> 
> Rgds
> Grace
> 
> From: william.drake at uzh.ch
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:14:54 +0200
> To: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: [NCUC-EC] PLEASE RESPOND TODAY IF POSSIBLE: NCPH Intersessional	Planning call on Friday, July 18th at 15:00 UTC
> 
> Hi
> 
> A couple years ago we held an intersessional meeting in LA for the NonContracted Party House to talk about its internal working and shared interests, or the lack thereof.  Rafik, I and the CSG leadership agreed we should do it again, and we put in a budget allocation request, which was approved.  Since then the conversation about when where and what agenda has been happening in a weirdly distributed way, sometimes on the publicly archived listserv set up for NCPH leadership discussions, but more often via varying Cc’s that the CSG folks initiate.  It occurs to me this morning in looking at the doodle for possible dates that a number of actors have participated who are not chairs, i.e. the ECs of CSG constituencies as well as our councilors.  This suggests that the NCUC EC also should have been included in the poll.  Sorry for the late notice, but I didn’t notice they were doing this.
> 
> We have a call today.  I’m not at all clear who is supposed to be on the call, but on the Cc about it there are 2 NPOC people and a non-chair from CSG, and as I say the doodle is more diverse.
> 
> So: a) if it’s fairly likely that you would like to remain on the NCUC EC come January (not clear I will), could you please fill out the doodle poll so we have a fuller account of who can make which dates from which sides http://doodle.com/kkr85zc6ueqbfws5
> 
> Also, if someone is willing to join the call, I’ll add “a second” just as NPOC and CSG have done.
> 
> While the below message was for some reason not on the public listserv, nothing here is sensitive and the conversation should be in a publicly archived list, so I’m forwarding it for background.  I don’t think I’m violating any privacy rights by doing so.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Subject: Re: Proposed agenda: NCPH Intersessional Planning call on Friday, July 18th at 15:00 UTC
> Date: July 18, 2014 at 8:58:12 AM GMT+2
> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> Cc: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Steve Metalitz <met at msk.com>, Elisa Cooper <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, Rob Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Thanks Marilyn for moving this forward.  A question: why aren’t we using gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org?  Isn’t this the sort of thing the list is for.  The varying Cc’s for different conversations leave me slightly confused about who’s party to which conversation and what to repeat to whom.
> 
> As we are apparently doing it here, I would note that the variable Cc's also have left me unclear as to whether this is a meeting of the chairs, or the chairs+?  If it’s the latter I'd like to bring along a concerned second from NCUC as well.  Please inform.
> 
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Bene, thanks so much.
> We would like to have a few minutes at beginning of call to address a NON Intercessional topic that is relevance to our House. Could we perhaps just block off 10-15 min at beginning of call? it could be called NCPH discussion.  I will leave it to my fellow officers on whether we postpone the recording, or keep the recording, but make it clear that this is a different topic. I personally have no problem with staff being on the call, but  but it is NOT about the Intercessional, and we might decide to ask you to rejoin after 15 min. 
> 
> Personally I see no reason for an exception to standard practice, especially bearing in mind the London statements by CEO and Board et al about the community needing to be transparent and accountable as well.  We ought to have a record our members can access when we discuss an important representational decision, no?  But if others feel differently let’s state for the record who opposes why and act accordingly.
> 
> BUT, I am very flexible.  We just needed to take advantage of being in the same space for a discussion that is important to the NCPH. 
> 
> I know all of us look forward to advancing the Intercessional discussion and planning. 
> 
> Doing Math about Availability: 
> I tried to do the math on who is available in the time frames we agreed, and this is my rough analysis. but subject to Bene who is probably better at math than I am! Or any of you. 
> 
> Re that doodle http://doodle.com/kkr85zc6ueqbfws5, I think it all depends where the meeting would be held.  If memory serves we had been talking about D.C. on the grounds this would be logistically easier for the CSG (NCSG is very globally distributed so any location will please some and others less).  That’s part of why I indicated on the poll that I couldn’t do 8-9 and 12-13.  Since that time things have evolved and if I really had to do 12-13 I could.  Alternatively, if we did Istanbul or Brussels, I could do any of these dates, but if it’s the 8-9 I would hope the CSG will perform an a cappella happy birthday for me. :-)
> 
> Also, I should note that I’d thought we were polling chairs and Councilors, so I didn’t as my the NCUC Exec. Comm to poll.  I will point them to the poll today and see if we can get more relevant data points before the meeting.
> 
> Jan 8-9  - Most difficult for all
> NO: 4 NCSG
> NO: 5 IPC
> NO: 2 BC
> 
> Jan 12-13: least difficult for all -- possibly best option
> NO: 1 NCSG
> NO: 1 BC
> 
> 
> Jan 15-16: difficult for some in significant numbers. 
> NO: 1 BC
> NO: 1 IPC
> NO: 5 IPC*
> I think this is Kristina and all five IPC reps, for a total of 6 not available on that date. I stand to be corrected. BUT, that week end is a US holiday, and some in the US will have famlly obligations as is typical of such holidays in all countries. 
> 
> 
> Look forward to speaking with you today,
> 
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20140718/4597ff4c/attachment.html>