[council] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] - ICANN61

Tue Nov 28 04:03:21 UTC 2017

Dear Council colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the SO/AC leaders list about
cross-community topics for ICANN61. Your SGs and Cs should all have
recently received a reminder of the deadline for proposing topics: 30
November 2017.

I have excerpted the thread below started by Donna and contributed to by
Farzaneh re proposing a GNSO PDP as a cross-community topic. This could be
an opportunity to discuss a PDP's initial conclusions or differences of
opinion/issues. If we think the policy development process would benefit
from an opportunity for wide community discussion and consultation, this
could be an opportunity (IGO/INGO Curative Rights was the first to come to
my mind).

Is this something that we want to pursue? If so, needs to be actioned
before end Thursday.

Best wishes,

Heather

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] - ICANN61
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "
soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org" <
soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>, Steve Chan <
steve.chan at icann.org>, Mario Aleman <mario.aleman at icann.org>, Rodrigo de la
Parra <rodrigo.delaparra at icann.org>, Patrik Fältström <paf.4711 at gmail.com>,
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>, Zoe Bonython <zoefrabon at gmail.com>, Gulten
Tepe <gulten.tepe at icann.org>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes at icann.org>,
GACLEADERSHIP <gac-leadership at icann.org>, "team-leaders at icann.org" <
team-leaders at icann.org>

I think Donna raised a number of excellent points, and I agree with Tijani
and Farzaneh's responses.  In particular, I think we need to confront the
issue that Farzi raised, which I call the issue of "ownership" of a given
session.  I'll suggest two or three possible solutions:

1.  Make it crystal clear that the proposing SOACetc. does *not* own the
session.  It does not get to determine the slant or the dominant point of
view, or the facilitator or the panelists.  This should be done by a small
cross-community planning team for each CC session, sharing the planning
burden and seeking to put together a well-rounded panel with points and
counterpoints well-represented and well-balanced.  This does not require
every SOACetc. to get a seat at the table, but it does require an
understanding and accommodation of the differing (and often, conflicting)
points of view.

*OR*

2. Acknowledge that some (but not all) of the sessions will be owned by the
proposer and will be intended to provide (or at least be dominated by) one
point of view or several largely aligned points of view.  Perhaps these
could be called *"Community-to-Community" *sessions.  These could be
compared to IGF sessions to some extent.  At a following ICANN meeting,
another SOACetc. could put together a different C2C session with their
"counterpoint" point of view (and neighboring views) dominating.  In each
case, the audience will provide the counterpoints, but it will be
understood how the panel itself is intended to be chosen and work in
practice.

The angst has arisen because fairly "hot" topics have been proposed as
Cross-Community sessions, and the tussle arises between those who believe
the proposer gets to shape the session around their views and those who
believe the panel should be balanced.  A secondary tussle arises because
the proposer puts in a lot of effort and believes that those who want a
seat at the table (especially later in the process) are "free-loading".  A
clear decision in advance would solve the first problem, and quick
invitations to the planning process would solve the second.

As for the conflicts/breadth of interest issues, I think we should
acknowledge that some topics have interest for virtually every community,
while others may only be of interest to some (but not all) communities.  We
should manage conflicts accordingly.  In other words, if Topic 1 is of
interest to communities A,B and C, but not D, E and F, then a second
session or sessions of interest to D, E and/or F can be scheduled against
Topic 1.  The alternative leaves the less-interested communities with no
compelling session to attend during the unconflicted CC Topic time.
Perhaps the topics where only some communities are interested could be
called *"Multi-Community Sessions (A, B, C)" *[where A, B and C are the
relevant communities] to distinguish them from true *"Cross-Community"*

On a related note, the way that voting in this group is weighted can result
in some topics of interest to many or all of the communities grouped under
the GNSO (Registries, Registrars, ISPs, Business, IP, Non-Commercial Users,
Non-Profits) but only some of the other communities losing out as
Cross-Community topics because the GNSO is only given a single vote.  This
needs to be addressed in some fashion, perhaps through the Multi-Community
Sessions.

In any event, these are largely "parting notes," as my term of office as
IPC President ends November 30.  It's been a pleasure working with all of
you and I'm sure we will have many other opportunities to work together in
various contexts.  You and the IPC will be in the good hands of my
successor, Brian Winterfeldt, while Vicky Sheckler will be continuing as
Vice President.

Happy Thanksgiving to those celebrating,

Best regards,

Greg Shatan
IPC President

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:36 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <
> tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Donna,
>> Comments inline:
>>
>> Le 17 nov. 2017 à 03:13, Austin, Donna via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning
>> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> Great to see you all in Abu Dhabi. I trust you’ve all settled back in to
>> your home timezones.
>>
>> I wanted to kick off some discussion about the Cross Community
>> Discussions Sessions for Puerto Rico.
>>
>> I think a few of us expressed some concern that identifying possible
>> topics by 30 November 2017, was too early given that the meeting is not
>> until mid-March 2018. I still subscribe to that and would ask that there be
>> some flexibility to review the topics again in late January to see if there
>> are new issues that may be more important.
>>
>>
>> Agree
>>
>
> I agree too.
>
>>
>> However, I would like to put in a ‘place-holder’ for a Cross Community
>> Discussion Session for one of the GNSO PDP WGs. We have a number underway
>> at the moment and there is the possibility that one or two of these efforts
>> will be at a point in their deliberations where the opportunity for a Cross
>> Community Discussion Session would be timely. I appreciate that the Puerto
>> Rico meeting is not a Policy/Outreach Forum, but as the PDP WGs work to a
>> set timetable I would ask for some leeway in this regard.
>>
>> I’d also like to continue our discussion about Cross Community Discussion
>> Sessions (Sessions), in particular the format and purpose. This seems to be
>> the topic that always generates the most angst amongst this group and now
>> that we’ve had a few goes at it, it might be time to revisit. I am
>> concerned that we are in some way being hamstrung by what we think these
>> Sessions are supposed to be rather than taking a look at the sessions
>> conducted to date and thinking about what has worked well, what we could
>> improve upon, and  perhaps coming up with some level principles for the
>> Sessions that we could agree on moving forward.
>>
>> For example, I don’t personally subscribe to the view that every SO/AC
>> has to be represented on a panel to convey their point of view. This might
>> be helpful if the purpose of the Session is to be ‘informational’, but if
>> the intent of the Session is to garner community views on a particular
>> topic or find a path forward to resolve a difficult situation then I don’t
>> believe that a panel of talking heads will achieve that goal. In
>> Johannesburg facilitators were used for the geographic names discussion,
>> which appeared to work well and by all accounts achieved the objectives of
>> those who organized the session. Is this an approach that could be adopted
>> for future Sessions?
>>
>> Unfortunately this will open the way for one group to dominate the
> discussion by choosing the facilitator on their own and then facilitators
> miraculously become speakers. If facilitators don't do anything other than
> just moderating, reading questions and trying to stimulate a discussion
> then that's fine but I am skeptical whether this can actually happen. so
> two minutes interventions from the community members with no one on the
> panel other than the facilitators. Now, who would set the scene? The
> facilitators? Since they might be from a certain SO/AC then they might not
> be neutral.
>
> I still think having interested SO/AC members on the panel is not a bad
> thing and it went well during Abu Dhabi.
>
>>
>> Do we want these Sessions to be decisional? There has been some very good
>> discussions in some of the Sessions to date, but I’m not confident that any
>> of the suggestions or decisions were captured and if they were, that there
>> is any agreement on who should be responsible for follow-up. Is this
>> something we think should be established upfront?
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that decisions are never taken during a cross
>> community session. Those sessions are for debate and the discussion may
>> impact decisions in working groups or other parties working on the topic
>> and habilitated to take decisions.
>>
>
> I agree with Tijani and I think they should not be decisional at all. 
>
>>
>> One of the original ideas behind these Sessions was that they be
>> non-conflicted to free up the whole community during a meeting to
>> participate in these Sessions. In the time of the IANA Transition
>> discussions we were certainly able to carve out substantial chunks of time
>> on the schedule for community discussions. However,  more recently we have
>> had trouble maintaining this as there are few topics that seem to rise to a
>> level of interest for the whole community. To that end, should we be
>> rethinking this requirement and perhaps run two Sessions concurrently when
>> it makes sense to do so?
>>
>>
>> Also, today, we still have topics like GDPR/Whois/RDS that are of
>> interest for the whole community. These session used to be called « Hot
>> Topic Session ». I think we always have hot topics to debate collectively
>> (no in our silos). Another exemple of such topics is the new GTLD
>> subsequent procedures and especially the geographic names
>>
>>  I suggested during our meeting in Abu Dhabi that ICANN org also have an
>> opportunity to identify a topic for these Sessions and I would reiterate
>> that suggestion here in the hope that we can agree to implement this for
>> Puerto Rico.
>>
>>
>> About policy???
>> If it is not, I think they did in Abu Dhabi (Session called « Open Q&A
>> with ICANN Organization Executive Team »)
>>
>
> I hope not about policy! we can invite them to our CCs but does not sound
> good to me that they organize CCs on policy ...
>
>>
>>
>>  I look forward to your comments/input and I hope that you will read my
>> email in the spirit of collaboration in which it is meant. I believe that
>> as representatives of our respective groups we have an obligation to try to
>> make the most of our time together at ICANN meetings and to use the
>> opportunity provided through the non-conflicted Cross Community Discussion
>> Sessions to have open community dialogue on issues that are important to
>> individual SO/ACs and ultimately the broader community, ICANN org and ICANN
>> Board.
>>
>>
>> Agree
>>
>>  Donna
>> Vice Chair, GNSO Council
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces at icann.org
>> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Susie
>> Johnson
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:41 AM
>> *To:* soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org; team-leade
>> rs at icann.org; Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>; Kathy
>> Schnitt <kathy.schnitt at icann.org>; Kimberly Carlson <
>> kimberly.carlson at icann.org>; Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>; Julia
>> Charvolen <julia.charvolen at icann.org>; Gulten Tepe <gulten.tepe at icann.org>;
>> Mario Aleman <mario.aleman at icann.org>; Maria Otanes <
>> maria.otanes at icann.org>; Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber at icann.org>;
>> Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra at icann.org>; Maryam Bakoshi <
>> maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>; Patrik
>> Fältström <paf.4711 at gmail.com>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>;
>> Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>; Carlos Reyes <
>> carlos.reyes at icann.org>; Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich at icann.org>; Tom
>> Dale <tom at acig.com.au>; Pierre Dandjinou <pierre.dandjinou at icann.org>;
>> GACLEADERSHIP <gac-leadership at icann.org>; Zoe Bonython <
>> zoefrabon at gmail.com>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>; Paul Diaz <
>> pdiaz at pir.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; amack <
>> amack at amglobal.com>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>; Mary Wong <
>> mary.wong at icann.org>; Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org>;
>> Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>; Steve Chan <
>> steve.chan at icann.org>; James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; Pamela
>> Smith <pamela.smith at icann.org>; John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Breakfast
>> Meeting - ICANN61 SO/AC Scheduling Kick-Off
>>
>> Dear Community Leaders:
>>
>> As promised, below please find the draft agenda:
>>
>> *ICANN61 SO/AC SCHEDULING KICK-OFF MEETING*
>> *Thursday, 2 November 2017*
>> *08:00-09:00*
>> *Capital Suite 03*
>>
>> *Agenda*
>>
>>
>>    1. *Welcome – David Olive*
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. *Schedule Production Calendar & Block Schedule Review – Tanzanica
>>    King*
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. *Cross-Community Topic Sessions – Tanzanica King*
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. *Incremental Changes to the Meeting Strategy – Sally Costerton*
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. *Future Dates for ICANN Meeting – Tanzanica King*
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. *ICANN61 - Puerto Rico – Nick Tomasso*
>>
>>
>> We will use https://participate.icann.org/abu60-capitalsuite3-c
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__participate.icann.org_abu60-2Dcapitalsuite3-2Dc&d=DwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=XZHThWe14Q2xVRgoqkrAMPcNbGtFAw1-0ltttzBtXNs&s=jKyhNVRjvLMN4nWh6Ty2Xtfd6ykdauWaq4XVaP8tN8U&e=>
>>  for the Adobe Connect room.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Susie
>>
>> Susie Johnson
>> Policy Operations Specialist and Executive Assistant to Sr. VP, Policy
>> Development
>> ICANN
>> www.icann.org
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=XZHThWe14Q2xVRgoqkrAMPcNbGtFAw1-0ltttzBtXNs&s=22GfY5rgwSzejOqz-VFz8m5dkjhm2IE1Ar4KDe8enok&e=>
>> Cell:  310.383.1240 <(310)%20383-1240>
>> Skype:  susie.johnson.icann
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list
>> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list
>> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list
> SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
>
>

_______________________________________________
SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list
SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20171128/e7f7ec4a/attachment.html>