[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Face to face?

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Wed Mar 4 20:06:23 UTC 2015

Hi Kathy and everyone,

Assuming the WG continues to make good progress, the revised time line in
the updated Work Plan that was circulated recently has the Initial Report
out for public comment - for a minimum period of 40 days - sometime in mid-
(or possibly late) April. This will allow the WG to begin its review of
public comments received during the lead-up to the Buenos Aires meeting,
such that a F2F session there can be helpful to the WG¹s preparations for
its formal Consensus Call and Final Report.

I hope this helps.


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

From:  Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date:  Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 10:27
To:  "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Face to face?

> The real question though is -- for what purpose?  I can understand all-day F2F
> meeting when we are in the throes of issues and development - but won't our
> report be out by then?
> Best,
> Kathy
> :
>> Kiran,
>> I see your point about burnout from an extra day. We also probably will lose
>> people because they can't afford additional travel expenses.
>> However, the last two ICANN meetings, particularly SIN, showed that we
>> already lose important contributors to conflicts for our sessions during the
>> ICANN week. Client and employer demands, and general "I'm up to my ears in
>> this stuff already and can catch up later" attitudes often trump the WG. In
>> addition, based on experience, announcing closed meetings during the week
>> (assuming we continue with that F2F model) invite the aggravation of having
>> to explain why.
>> I'm not a fan of an extra day. However, I think it's the only way to get the
>> critical mass and focus that makes the F2F worthwhile.
>> Don
>> On 3/3/2015 5:40 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
>>> I understand the benefits, but frankly  it¹s not possible.  If the group is
>>> okay with eliminating voices and viewpoints, especially in a time where we
>>> are attempting to increase participation, diversity (gender, geographic,
>>> socioeconomic, etc.) and be more welcome to newcomers, that¹s fine, but be
>>> aware of the consequences.
>>> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:34 PM
>>> To: Kiran Malancharuvil; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Face to face?
>>> Kiran:
>>> I understand where you are coming from.
>>> But, the one big virtue of an all-day F2F meeting is that the participants
>>> can stick with a subject and resolve it rather than stop short due to
>>> artificial  time constraints. In Singapore, despite the collective fatigue,
>>> we made far more progress in the time we engaged than we would have in any
>>> series of meetings adding up to the same time expenditure.
>>> Besides, I can¹t imagine, given the diversity of WG participants and their
>>> interests/responsibilities, that we can find  any time slots for shorter
>>> meetings during the full ICANN meeting that wouldn¹t present irreconcilable
>>> conflicts for a substantial portion of participants.
>>> Best, Philip
>>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>> Virtualaw LLC
>>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>> Suite 1050
>>> Washington, DC 20004
>>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>> From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 5:26 PM
>>> To: Phil Corwin; Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Face to face?
>>> Hi Guys,
>>> I am staunchly opposed to adding more days to the ICANN schedule.  Many of
>>> us have family and work obligations that make the existing schedule almost
>>> impossible.  Adding days onto the already burdensome schedule will create a
>>> problem where we risk eliminating important voices and viewpoints because
>>> participation becomes problematic.
>>> Can we brainstorm a solution where we have more frequent shorter meetings
>>> throughout the week?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kiran
>>> From:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:17 PM
>>> To: Mary Wong; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Face to face?
>>> I would urge looking at the 19th rather than the 26th.
>>> I am one of the few people who participated in both the LA F2F of this WG
>>> and the Singapore F2F of the IGO WG.
>>> While the meetings were not directly comparable in terms of travel distance
>>> (for me), overall meeting workload intensity, and personal responsibility (I
>>> Co-Chair the IGO WG), it is still my overall opinion that, if a F2F meeting
>>> is appropriate for PPSAI in June, it will be much better to hold it on the
>>> Friday before the ICANN meeting starts in terms of focus and productivity..
>>> Participants may be jetlagged but they are still fresh. By the time the
>>> Friday after the meeting arrives many participants are spent physically and
>>> especially psychologically.
>>> Take that for what it¹s worth.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-p
>> dp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150304/52bfba78/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150304/52bfba78/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list