[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Follow-on to Greg's comment.

[Alan Greenberg]

This message is a follow-on to Greg's comment at the close of our last meeting.

It is based on two points.

The 1st is embedded in item 1 of the proposed participant commitments, specifically: "Most of the work will take place during an intensive two-day in-person/hybrid session where participants will work together as a team of creative problem solvers..." Although I have some doubts that this single meeting will result in our long-sought after silver bullet path forward, I have absolutely no doubt that such a largely face-to-face meeting will allow us to make good progress - progress which would likely not be made in multiple remote-only sessions.

The 2nd is Melissa's comments that this facilitated Dialogue is a new construct for ICANN and we need to optimize it for success and not presume it is identical (or similar) to other ICANN processes such as PDPs.

The point that Greg was getting at was that the ALAC/At-Large will be significantly disadvantaged in comparison to the other groups (GNSO and GAC). The ALAC is the only group with one group member, augmented by an alternate. We accept the concept that the alternate may not actively participate in the group's substantive discussions. The ALAC's selection process sought to have to experienced, knowledgeable and open-minded people participate with the intent that they could work as a team to best ensure that any group end-product will be acceptable to the ALAC and At-Large (and of course the other group participants).  By allowing such communications during the face-to-face to take place only in "back-channels" effectively negates its potential benefit. Although the ALAC had not precluded the concept of fact-to-face meetings, it envisaged that the bulk of this group's work would be done with teleconferences allowing abundant time for Greg and me to collaborate.

I note that the ALAC representatives, unlike many other ICANN participants have no government of business interests available to independently fund such travel.

The costs of such attendance are not unreasonable (several group participants live in the DC area and will not require travel funds).

An obvious question is whether this would set a precedent, and the answer is that of course it will. Should there ever be another facilitated dialogue (addressing an issue that the Board punted on 10 years ago and that was unresolved in an extensive and thorough PDP) with a single member/alternate from one of the participant groups then this would be a precedent. That is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future and if it were to happen. it might be healthy and beneficial precedent.

I request that this group allow in person participation of the ALAC Alternate in facilitated dialogue face-to-face meetings.

I commit to not enjoying myself to minimize any personal benefit!  😉

Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20221114/4fceffe7/attachment.html>