Hi,
I assume we will _not_ make this a directed vote.
I do not care which of the two are chosen and i can think of arguments
for each one as to why it is the worse of the choices. I want it on the
record that this is a bad way for ICANN to bahave.
Also, on creating precedent, even when you label it non precedent, it is
creates precedent.
avri
On 06-May-14 08:09, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On May 6, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As far as I am concerned they gave us two failing choices. Bad and Badder.
>>
>> They should have added Friday back in, at least for this occasion.
>
> Yes, as you know that was my reaction, and the chairs of the registries and ISPs agreed that the loss of Fridays was a root cause of persistent scheduling implosion and merited reconsideration. But I guess Steve and the board are not interested in having that discussion, as theres been no reply on the point to any of us.
>
>> I see it as stubbornness, and find each of the choices offered
>> unsatisfactory.
>>
>> That would be my personal answer. If the council were to vote, my
>> choice would be to abstain with a statement.
>
> But then they’ll just decide without us, and it won’t affect the Friday issue if their heels are dug in. If we want to press the latter, maybe we should talk with the other SO-ACs about it and see if there’s consensus before trying to engage the board…?
>
> Anyway, re: London, I asked the NCUC EC and people agreed that given the lousy choices a one-time-only shortening of the public forum to allow the IANA and accountability discussions seemed ok. Clearly we can’t do these Monday with the GAC high level meeting happening all day, and Wednesday is packed with the GNSO meeting and workshops. So replying along the lines of "ok this once but we still think Friday’s an issue" was what I had in mind.
>
> Maybe could discuss on the NCSG call in AOB?
>
> Bill
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06-May-14 07:32, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>> I agree with Magaly. We should assume that we will not travel back on
>>> Thursday, in order to be there with the necessary calm and tranquility. :)
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 05/06/2014 12:44 AM, Magaly Pazello wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> pls see below a request from Steve Crocker and Sally Costerton about the
>>>> Icann 50 meeting schedule. They are proposing some changes and asking us
>>>> feedback about it. The ISPCP has responded in favor of option 1. A quick
>>>> look at the options I also think option 1 looks ok. Any comments or
>>>> observations?
>>>>
>>>> Magaly
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:54 AM
>>>> Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See below and please provide any feedback you may have ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know some feel very strongly about the public forum but, given the High
>>>> Level (Government) meeting taking place on Monday in London, a once-off
>>>> schedule change may be a good idea?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is being asked for is guidance or feedback on 1 or 2 as a preferred
>>>> option.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* [log in to unmask] [mailto:
>>>> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Crocker
>>>> *Sent:* 02 May 2014 20:02
>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>> *Cc:* Sally Costerton; Tanzanica S. King; Jim Trengrove; Icann-board ICANN;
>>>> Nick Tomasso; Theresa Swinehart; Duncan Burns
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 50 possible Thursday change
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>
>
|
