[Gnso-epdp-team] Face-to-face meeting attendance

[Georgios.TSELENTIS at ec.europa.eu]

Dear Kurt, all,



Taking up on this issue from our last discussion and comments in the chat I really do not see the disruption issue here. ICANN policy making is supposed to be as inclusive as possible and although I can understand the rules set to limit active participation at the meetings to a manageable size, if the seats at the round table are respected to keep the balance, it really does not matter who talks on behalf of each constituency. This is common practice in many fora and I really do not see the problem here. I rather see an opportunity to have alternates much more involved and informed so they can actively contribute to our work.



Following LA we have Barcelona and there again we are expected to be in many meetings with high work load. A flexible step in and step out between alternates and members is highly desirable (respecting of course the membership numbers) to help us do our work.



Can I make a plea to colleagues to reconsider banning people out of the room and give a chance to the groups to work more efficiently amongst them and to the benefit of the whole ePDP exercise?



Georgios Tselentis (GAC-EC)



From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:52 AM
To: Kurt Pritz
Cc: GNSO EPDP
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Face-to-face meeting attendance



Thanks for proposing this, Kurt.



Broadly I support what you have proposed in your first option, but I would like to clarify this point:

   1.      If an attending member is, in good faith, reasonably certain that s/he will be absent for a period of time where attendance by an alternate is desired, then:

   1.      that member and the alternate can attend the full meeting but only one will be designated as a participant at any one time

   2.      the alternate will not be given travel support

   I would like to tighten this language up to make it clear that only the designated participant may be in the meeting room while the meeting is ‘live.’ As remote participation will be available, alternates (and members when an alternate has taken their seat) can still keep up with proceedings without being physically present in the meeting room. This will mean that there can be a rotation between members and alternates in exceptional circumstances, though I think that is both undesirable and will be disruptive.



   The GNSO Council was deliberate in how it constructed the composition of this EPDP, and the distinction between a member, alternate, and observer is important. Having both members and alternates in the room (when the alternate is not sitting in on behalf of a member) will disturb and alter this vitally important balance.



   Thank you.



   Best wishes,



   Ayden Férdeline





   On 21 Aug 2018, at 03:58, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>> wrote:



   Hi Everyone:



   Here is where I am on attendance at the face-to face meeting (and for discussion tomorrow).



   I have given this considerable thought, writing a 1400+ word memo / analysis of the different options to the GNSO leadership. Then, I re-thought all of that to come up with an alternative approach.



   I believe that the best option is:

   1.      Members are invited and will be provided travel support.

   2.      If a member cannot attend in person, an alternate can attend and be provided travel support. If this is the case, the alternate should be designated to the Support Team as soon as possible.

   3.      In example(2) above, if the absent member wished to participate remotely of a portion of the meeting, then she can do that and the alternate can only participate when the member is unavailable to participate.

   4.      If an attending member is, in good faith, reasonably certain that s/he will be absent for a period of time where attendance by an alternate is desired, then:

   1.      that member and the alternate can attend the full meeting but only one will be designated as a participant at any one time

   2.      the alternate will not be given travel support

   I think this is the best option for several reasons:

   1.      It provides travel support commensurate with membership

   2.      It allows alternates, when needed, to keep up with the proceedings

   3.      It is economical compared to other solutions

   4.      It will be easy to manage who participates and when

   5.      Will not materially impact the meeting room size or planning by the ICANN Meetings Team

   Thinking of other options:

   ·         If alternate participation is curtailed beyond this, team effectiveness might be hobbled.

   ·         If alternative participation is expanded beyond this, meeting costs might escalate and logistics would become complicated.



   My second choice would be to make the meeting completely open. In this case there would be two sets of attendees: members and observers.

   1.      The separation would be easy to manage

   2.      The goal of keeping alternates up to speed could be realised.

   3.      Openness and transparency would be assured.

   4.      However, costs and logistic support requirements would increase, taking budget from more important needs

   Thanks and regards,



   Kurt





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20180822/3b24c2d3/attachment-0001.html>