Hi,
we discussing quickly about this issue in NCSG call yesterday and my
understanding is we cna go with option 1. if there is no objection, I will
share that .
indeed there is risk of setting precedent like what happened in singapore
for the main session in monday led by SO/AC which was replaced by an ICANN
led session on IANA transition without consultation. I would say that
setting precedent become a tradition in ICANN and creating a "fait
accompli" every time. however, making the point and expressing concern is
important.
the format and ICANN meetings schedule may change if several
recommendations of meetings working group are adopted (
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf)
fpr example with removing public forum for 1 ICANN meeting , the friday
will back for 1 meeting too. in fact the usual 3 icann meetings year will
be different.
for the GNSO council, Jonathan as chair of the council reacted previously
to Steve request but I don't know how much discussion was held in GNSO
council list regarding this topic and if it will covered at tomorrow call.
Best Regards
Rafik
2014-05-07 1:09 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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
> > ***********************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
|
