Dear Stephanie

Thank you Stephanie for a very important question.

My answer would be that we should try to use the meeting to improve our 
understanding and relationship to other stakeholders. As part of the new 
empowered community, it will not be any longer good enough to work out 
compromises between stakeholders that everybody is equally unhappy with, 
but we need to learn to move from talk and be able to work and act 
together. This will require a better understanding of each others needs 
and ability and the identification and implementation of real win-win 
situations. That goes further then just stating positions, it means to 
learn to listen too.  NPOC tried to organize a session in Hyderabad 
where we would be able to listen to the perceptions and expectations of 
other stakeholder groups of the Civil society stakeholders. The event 
did not take place because of massive scheduling conflicts, but we might 
try to do something similar again in Reykjavik.

Hope that helps and Thanks again for your thoughtful and well placed 
question.

Yours

Klaus


On 12/1/2016 6:10 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Great idea guys, what did you have in mind for the agenda?
>
> Stephanie
> On 2016-12-01 06:41, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
>>
>> +1 Klaus
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8837 7176
>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>> On 1 Dec 2016, at 2:00, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>>
>>     Dear All
>>
>>     I wish we would spend as much time and energy on IG policy making
>>     topics as we spend time on the merits of various places around
>>     the world to host an ICANN Intersessional meeting. Can we talk
>>     about what we need to discuss t the meeting, the goals we want to
>>     achieve and how to get there. When we do this, the place might
>>     not be of such an importance.
>>
>>     Yours
>>
>>     Klaus
>>
>>     PS: Kuawi, Hawaii. Definitely!
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 12/1/2016 1:37 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>     Sam,
>>>
>>>     I don't think it was clear at all that some locations were said
>>>     "almost in jest". What was made clear, however, on page 14
>>>     <https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Planning+-+Intersessional+2017%3A+Call+details%2C+recordings%2C+transcripts?preview=/63144502/63150133/transcript_ncphpc_291116.pdf>
>>>     of the transcript, was the instruction to, "Please type
>>>     [locations] into the chat. No tongue in cheek suggestions,
>>>     please, because we can’t see or hear your tone when you're
>>>     typing that in." If that instruction was ignored and our
>>>     representatives on the call did instead suggest cities not well
>>>     suited to hosting a meeting such as this one, I'm not sure who
>>>     they thought they were serving.
>>>
>>>     Ayden Férdeline
>>>     linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>
>>>
>>>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>>>     Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing
>>>>     Local Time: 1 December 2016 12:24 AM
>>>>     UTC Time: 1 December 2016 00:24
>>>>     From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>     To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>     In response to who made the suggestions for a location for the
>>>>     CGPH
>>>>     Intersession, a review of the session Chat transcript
>>>>     makes it clear that the names were tossed out at the last
>>>>     minute, and
>>>>     some serious and some almost in jest.
>>>>
>>>>     One gets a sense from the overall records of the meeting, that
>>>>     Reykjavik
>>>>     remains a front runner.
>>>>     The decision is supposed to be out on Friday, Dec 2nd.
>>>>
>>>>     https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Planning+-+Intersessional+2017%3A+Call+details%2C+recordings%2C+transcripts?preview=/63144502/63150134/acchat_ncphpc_291116_.pdf
>>>>
>>>>     Sam L.
>>>
>>
>