[NCUC-EC] Fwd: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda

Tue Nov 25 10:02:15 CET 2014

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 <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 <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>
>>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20141125/b7111395/attachment.html>