[gnso-rpm-wg] For Members only: poll on a half or full day meeting at ICANN57

[George Kirikos]

I find the poll options very confusing. Are we asking whether we
*want* the F2F? Or are we asking whether we'd participate *if* there's
a F2F?

>From the choices:

"I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting in person" - Yes/No

"I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting remotely" - Yes/No

etc.

it seems to not capture what appears to be the intent of the poll,
namely finding out whether we want a F2F in the first place. My
preferences might be "No, I don't want one, but yes, I'll participate
if there is one" --- how should I vote?!?!?!

A simpler poll might be a single question (instead of 5 questions):

1. Do you want to have a F2F?

(a) Yes, full day
(b) Yes, half day
(c) No.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
>
>
> As noted during the Working Group call last Wednesday, it may be possible
> for GNSO PDP Working Groups to conduct either a half-day (4 hours) or
> full-day face-to-face meeting at ICANN57. These F2F meetings do not replace
> the “traditional” 60- or 90-minute open meetings that all Working Groups
> normally conduct at ICANN Public Meetings; rather, the idea of a F2F meeting
> is to provide a Working Group that is at an appropriate phase in its work
> with the additional time to focus more intensively on its deliberations, in
> a closed setting, so as to facilitate consensus building and effective
> outcomes.
>
>
>
> Quite a few Members who attended the call last Wednesday agreed that there
> seems not to be a pressing need for our Working Group to have such a closed,
> intensive session at ICANN57. However, to allow all Members the chance to
> weigh in, staff has created the following poll:
> http://doodle.com/poll/eu2rt7uuw446srp6.
>
>
>
> We will appreciate it if you can fill out the poll at your earliest
> convenience, noting that it is intended for Members only and that, if a F2F
> meeting is to take place, it will likely be on Thursday 3 November and
> remote participation facilities will be made available to those who are not
> there in person. However, no travel funding will be provided for this
> specific purpose. Please note also that not conducting a F2F meeting at this
> time will not prejudice or affect any future decision by the GNSO Council
> regarding whether and when we might have such a meeting – perhaps at ICANN58
> (March 2017) or ICANN59 (June 2017).
>
>
>
> Thanks very much.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
> Mary Wong
>
> Senior Policy Director
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg