[NCUC-EC] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change

Tue May 6 01:36:18 CEST 2014

Me too.

Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 14:23:49 -0400
From: pranesh at cis-india.org
To: rballeste at stu.edu; Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu; wjdrake at gmail.com; ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change

I'm pretty much of the same opinion as Stefania.

~ Pranesh

Balleste, Roy <rballeste at stu.edu> [2014-05-05 15:07:57 +0000]:
> +1
>
> Roy
>
> From: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Milan, Stefania
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:51 AM
> To: William Drake; Exec. Comm
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
>
>
> Hi Bill, everyone: I trust you Bill on this. I ok with option 1, too.
>
> 
>
> ________________________________
> Da: ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> per conto di William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
> Inviato: sabato 3 maggio 2014 10.06
> A: Exec. Comm
> Oggetto: [NCUC-EC] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
>
> Hi
>
> I’m guessing this might not be of intense local interest but just in case, Steve proposed a schedule change, I and several other SO AC leaders grumped, he’s come back with options. I’m inclined toward solution 1 on a one-time only basis to avoid any precedent that the public forum be reduced, as are some others. Newest at top.
>
> Any thoughts, please share ASAP.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> From: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com<mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
> Date: May 2, 2014 at 9:01:35 PM GMT+2
> To: soac-infoalert at icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert at icann.org>
> Cc: Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org<mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org<mailto:tanzanica.king at icann.org>>, Jim Trengrove <jim.trengrove at icann.org<mailto:jim.trengrove at icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board at icann.org<mailto:icann-board at icann.org>>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org<mailto:nick.tomasso at icann.org>>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org<mailto:theresa.swinehart at icann.org>>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org<mailto:duncan.burns at icann.org>>
>
> Folks,
>
> Sally Costerton and I thank you all for your helpful responses to my earlier note on the idea of changing the Thursday agenda to accommodate more time for the public dialogue we need to deliver at our forthcoming London meeting.  We are acutely conscious that the combination several major one-off events - the High Level Government Meeting (HLGM)  and the two public consultations are putting significant pressure on the agenda for ICANN50.
>
> We are juggling trying to maximise flexibility for SOACs to do their work, access to the HLGM and the need to provide slots for Hot Topics for cross community dialogue with minimal agenda conflict.
>
> Having considered your feedback and consulted with staff, we suggest two options below.   Please pick one and let us know over the next day or two.
>
>
>    1.  We make the changes to Thursday as suggested and support this by running an additional IANA stewardship transition session on Monday after the opening session and provide support to the SOAC groups to find alternative slots on the agenda in addition to the early Thursday slot as needed.  We pilot remote hubs using two-way video and hopefully a YouTube channel.  The use of remote hubs actually doubled participation at NETmundial so could be a real opportunity to diversify input.
>
>    2.  We keep Thursday as it usually runs with a four hour public forum and run two consultation sessions - one on the IANA stewardship transition and one on the ICANN accountability dialogue on a 'normal' schedule - this would be Monday or Wednesday to get time that is minimally conflicted.  This would be much like Singapore.  We would not set up the video remote hubs in this case or possibly the YouTube channel.  This would maintain the full Public Forum but reduce the time and attention for the two consultation sessions.  Also the Monday sessions will have to run parallel to the HLGM and we know that UKG have requested a session on IANA oversight transition led by Larry Strickling.
>
> Finally we are very aware that the community wants to improve the issue of agenda conflict at ICANN meetings.  This topic was addressed in detail by the Meeting Strategy Working Group which recently had its report out for public comment.  There was a previous opportunity to see this but in case you haven’t, not here is a copy of the recommendations http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf
>
> If you can let us know which option you prefer over the next 48 hours we would appreciate it.  If we go for option 1 we need to let the community know early next week so that they can confirm travel and we can start the call to set up the hubs.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Crocker and Sally Costerton
>
>
> From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
> Date: April 27, 2014 at 2:29:48 PM GMT+2
> To: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com<mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>>
> Cc: "SOAC-infoalert at icann.org<mailto:SOAC-infoalert at icann.org>" <SOAC-infoalert at icann.org<mailto:SOAC-infoalert at icann.org>>
>
> Hi Steve
>
> NCUC folks think the Public Forum is pretty important and have never been wild about suggestions to shorten it.  On the other hand, since we lost Fridays we’ve gotten used to schedule implosions and forced choices between equally essential sessions that reduce our ability to participate effectively in ICANN.  So if Thursday’s really the only option for the accountability and IANA discussions that obviously need to happen, ok let’s do that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com<mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>> wrote:
>
>
> SO and AC chairs,
>
> As you know, ICANN50 is fast approaching and post NETmundial we are now turning our thoughts to the tricky subject of how to ensure that we carve out enough quality time in the agenda to handle effective and comprehensive public dialogues on the Transition of the NTIA Stewardship of the  IANA function as well as the new ICANN Accountability track.  These will both require a chunk of non-conflicted time in London and the ability to offer high quality remote access to maximise participants from around the world.
>
> To the latter, we're exploring the possibility of setting up a series of remote hubs as some of you will have seen used at NETmundial to great acclaim. We will explore this idea further over the next week or so and keep you updated.
>
> On the scheduling point, we'd like to suggest that for this meeting only we reshuffle the planned Thursday agenda.  Currently our thinking is that we start the morning at 8.30 to allow those groups having wrap up sessions to handle those requirements between 8.30 and 10am.  We follow this with a two hour session on ICANN Accountability followed by an early lunch break and then run a session on the Transition of the NTIA Stewardship of the  IANA function from 1-3 or 3.30.  This is the most effective time slot to maximise international participation. We'd run a shorter Public Forum from 4 - 6 and wrap up with a public Board meeting finishing at 7 and then Cocktails.
>
> The RSSAC would like an open session during the meeting and we'd propose to put that into a Monday afternoon slot.  We anticipate that two hours will probably be adequate for the Public Forum because the Transition of the NTIA Stewardship of the  IANA function and ICANN Accountability topics will be very important for the community and would likely take up a chunk of the public forum under normal cirumstances.
>
> If you are in agreement with this suggestion we'd like to communicate it this week to enable people to firm up their travel plans.
>
> Please let us know your thoughts in the next day or two.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Steve.
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

_______________________________________________
NCUC-EC mailing list
NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20140505/9d06f2a8/attachment.html>