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

[Kathy Kleiman]

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  it’s 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, that’s 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 can’t 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 wouldn’t 
>> 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 
>> <mailto: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> 
>> [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 
>> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Face to face?
>>
>> I would urge looking at the 19^th rather than the 26^th .
>>
>> 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 it’s worth.
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150304/5251f121/attachment.html>