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 > > *********************************************** > > > > > > >