[council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf

Thu Apr 14 20:53:36 UTC 2016

Hi,

Several points very well made, James.

Thanks for that.

Amr

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 6:49 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
> Speaking for only for myself---
> 
> After numerous conversations on this, I’m coming around to Donna’s point of view regarding Meeting B.  Although maybe for different reasons.
> 
> If I can be blunt, I think if Meeting B is going to fail, it should fail because we followed the MSWG recipe to the letter, and not because we were tinkering with the ingredients while the cake was already in the oven. It is therefore entirely possible that we come out of Helsinki wondering “what was that all about?” and that a few years from now, we reminisce about Meeting B over drinks and laugh.
> 
> Or, the Helsinki meeting could launch a new era for ICANN, where leaner, light-weight events become more common.  Where the summer event is laser-focused on policy development, rather than taking on the broader universe of Internet  governance, commercial dealmaking,  and organizational restructure. Where we take this smaller event on the road to more remote venues and connect with the communities already in operation there.  This is the potential payoff of Meeting B.
> 
> The good news w.r.t. the PDPs that would be eligible for the day-long face-to-face meeting under the Pilot Program, is that they’re just starting up, and not at a critical point in their work plan where they are dependent upon the face to face to meet any deadline.  In some ways, this is fortuitous quirk of the calendar that allows us some flexility for a Meeting B “trial run.”  We can move these PDPs to 1- or 2-hours sessions in Helsinki, but preserve the full-day option for Meeting A and Meeting C (btw, this exact question was part of our discussion on the FY17 Budget).
> 
> Anyway, those are just my thoughts.  I realize the GNSO calendar is several orders of magnitude more complex than other SO/ACs, but I think we should do our best to track the original intent of Meeting B, with no small measure of courage for trying something new.
> 
> Looking forward to our discussion on this in a few hours.
> 
> Thanks—
> 
> J.
> 
> From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>
> Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:23 
> To: David Cake <davecake at gmail.com>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf
> 
> Hi David, all
>  
> If I could make one plea on this topic it is that we go into Meeting B with an open mind and save the constructive feedback for after the meeting.
>  
> Meeting B will be significantly different from Meetings A and C, in that it is intended to be about policy and will be conducted over 4 days. If it transpires that Meeting B does not live up to expectations and allow for policy work  to be progressed to the extent that this would have been achieved with an additional day via the Pilot Program, then we can discuss how to move forward to best address any shortcomings. 
>  
> We need to be careful not to shoot the messenger. Nick is implementing recommendations that came from the Meeting Strategy Working Group (a cross community work group that had representation from across the community including the GNSO and the GAC) and was approved by the Board. As a member of the MSWG, I feel very strongly about being able to give Meeting B its best opportunity for success or failure.
>  
> Thanks for your understanding.
>  
> Donna
>  
> Donna Austin:Neustar, Inc.
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
> Cell:+1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin at neustar.biz
>  
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.
> Follow Neustar:   <image001.png> Facebook   <image002.png> LinkedIn   <image003.png> Twitter
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake
> Sent: Thursday, 14 April 2016 7:14 AM
> To: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>; GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf
>  
> Which means option a) - Nick does not understand what the Pilot Program is, and is confusing incorporporating PDP work into meeting B with incorporating the Pilot Program into meeting B (which there are no plans to do). 
>  
> In short, a very disappointing answer. 
>  
> David
>  
>  
>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 10:09 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi David -
>>  
>> We can confirm with Nick, but I don’t think the implication was for the face-to-face to encompass an entire day (25%!) of Meeting B.  Only that the topic itself would be included in to the schedule/agenda for the Policy Forum.  Something we can discuss further on our call in a few hours.
>>  
>> Thanks-
>>  
>> J.
>>  
>> From: David Cake <davecake at gmail.com>
>> Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:06 
>> To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Cc: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf
>>  
>> Absorbing the full day Working Groups Pilot program into the schedule implies that they believe it is practical to ask Working Group members will take an extended period (usually a full day or nearly so for the Pilot Program so far) out from an already short and overpacked meeting. 
>>  
>> I am finding this hard to understand in terms other than Nick is either a) lacking in understanding of what the pilot program consists of and is confusing it with more routine policy work or b) has entirely unrealistic ideas about the scheduling of working group members or c) is making some kind of joke. 
>>  
>> I’d frankly he rather had just said no than make this rather impractical suggestion of incorporation. 
>>  
>> Regards
>>  
>> David
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 5:10 AM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>  
>>> This letter has been published at:
>>> 
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/tomasso-to-bladel-13apr16-en.pdf
>>>  
>>> Thank you.
>>> Kind regards,
>>>  
>>> Glen
>>>  
>>> De : owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] De la part de James M. Bladel
>>> Envoyé : jeudi 14 avril 2016 04:41
>>> À : GNSO Council List
>>> Objet : [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf
>>>  
>>> Councilor Colleagues -
>>>  
>>> Please see attached for a letter form Nick Tomasso, responding to our earlier request regarding a face-to-face PDP meeting.   During our discussions in Marrakech and with smaller groups, we have tried to balance the value of having these sessions at ICANN meetings, while trying to remain faithful to the intention of the "Meeting B” policy forum concept.   
>>>  
>>> As for Nick’s response, I would like to draw your attention to this statement in particular:
>>> "It is anticipated that the PDP Working Groups Pilot Program will be absorbed into the 'Meeting B' schedule rather than having an additional day specifically for that purpose." 
>>>  
>>> I agree that the Policy Forum concept must recognize the importance of advancing the work of ongoing PDPs, but would emphasize incorporating these in to the 4 day schedule, rather than add an optional 5th day.  
>>>  
>>> I welcome thoughts from others on this topics and Nicks’ letter, and I’m looking forward to further discussions on tomorrow’s call.
>>>  
>>> Thank you,
>>>  
>>> J.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: <owner-gnso-chairs at icann.org> on behalf of "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 21:26 
>>> To: "gnso-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-chairs at icann.org>
>>> Cc: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, "Board-Ops-Team at icann.org" <board-ops-team at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf
>>>  
>>> Dear James,
>>>  
>>> Please find the attached letter from Nick Tomasso concerning your request for face-to-face sessions of PDP Working Groups linked to ICANN56.
>>>  
>>> Best regards,
>>>  
>>> Tanzanica
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Tanzanica S. King
>>> Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design 
>>> ICANN
>>>  
>>> Office   +1 310 301 5800
>>> Mobile  +1 310 995 3038
>>> Email    king at icann.org
>>> www.icann.org
>>  
>  
> <image001.png><image002.png><image003.png>