[ALT-Plus] working session at ICANN64 (was ALAC inquiry)

[Maureen Hilyard]

Hi Marita and Javier

I agree with regards some of the interesting topics that have come up in
the "Say What" thread. The Planning Team now needs topics and some idea of
session content and leaders who are prepared to lead the sessions and the
activities.

I am not saying that we take up every session with this type of activity,
but I still think that being together at at ICANN meeting could be used
more fruitfully for us as a group to be able to discuss these important
issues face-to-face, and to engage others who might also like to come along
and join in. But we do need people to lead and plan sessions that are going
to get people actively engaged, so that the discussions don't just end at
the end of the session.

M

M

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 5:48 AM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Hello all. In response to Maureen's call for working session topics, I
> don't think we can ignore the serious discussion going on under the subject
> line "Say What!"  I really like Olivier's point that "As for ICANN 3.0 -
> it's only by speaking about it that we can gain the buy-in from all
> parties. It's a constant struggle to make something out of mud at the
> grassroots. "
>
> I would frame it as an exploration of what how we might like to see At
> Large positioned in a hypothetical ICANN 3.0. If this were to be a topic,
> it would need to be a visioning session not a laundry airing session, if
> you know what I mean.
>
> Working title: ICANN 3.0 - making something out of the mud at the
> grassroots. (Thanks Olivier!)
>
> Or maybe we have been there, done that. Being fairly new, I wouldn't know
> of course. But given the spirited discussion on the list, it's an
> unresolved issue.
>
> Marita
> On 12/16/2018 12:30 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>
> Thanks for raising the issues John, It also raises something of importance
> to At-Large - about how we make the best use of ICANN Org visitors we
> invite to our meetings.
>
> When would you like this to take place - in a webinar, at an ALAC meeting
> (not that we have that much time during ALAC meetings) or in Kobe?
>
> I like the idea for Kobe, as a workshop, so that non-At-Large participants
> (like the Fellows and Next Gen) who come to our meetings can get to
> understand the implications for end-users of what you are asking Jamie to
> respond to..
>
> Perhaps we can set aside a 60-90 minute session where firstly, a short 101
> introduction about the Compliance section and why it is important to
> end-users. At-Large participants would then need to know why you  consider
> your concerns important enough for the head of Compliance to be called in,
> and his response..
>
> After all this introductory part of the session involving both you and
> Jamie, then it would be meaningful for groups to explore some common
> compliance issues which they might come across in their lives and to return
> some feedback to the wider group.
>
> For me, the most important result  of such a session is for Jamie and the
> role of Compliance to remain in their memories far longer than currently.
> Id like him not to leave as other visitors have done after giving their
> spiel about themselves and leaving, with people left in a quandary and
> looking at each other without having to say - "what the heck was that all
> about?"
>
> Of course social media must be used to advertise the event, giving a short
> intro about the session, and it will have a meaningful title in our working
> session schedule, so that we can encourage more remote participants to join
> in. I think that people would get more out of our sessions if we were more
> proactive and organised about who we get in to talk to us and why, and that
> we better utilise both their time and ours.. And that different people get
> to chair the sessions as well. :)
>
> I hope that this starts a discussion about other working sessions in
> ICANN64 as well. The Planning Committee has about 13 sessions to fill :)
> We need ideas by the end of December.
>
> M
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 9:37 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jamie,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve been listening to At Large and am hoping you can offer me some
>> compliance information and data points in preparation for Kobe.
>>
>>    - What sanction(s?) does ICANN have at its disposal to enforce
>>    contractual compliance on non-compliant contracting parties?
>>    - Historically, how often have these sanctions employed? (annual
>>    historical numbers with some frame numbers to estimate enforcement rates
>>    would be helpful)
>>    - How effective has this been historically?
>>
>> FYI In relation to other discussions around GDPR, RDS, and new gTLDs I’ve
>> been hearing that action against bad actors (fraud/spam) in the name space
>> has been slow and hard. I understand that these actors are likely more
>> nimble than ICANN but I want to get a better picture regarding ICANN’s
>> capabilities vis a vis this persistent problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> John Laprise
>>
>> NARALO ALAC Representative
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-Members mailing listALAC-Members at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20181216/b419bcd4/attachment.html>