[Npoc-discuss] NPOC position on the Intersessional meetings

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

	I agree that merit is yet to be found, but I do think that an event where the NCHP can work face-to-face, even within the constituencies, is very much needed and can be very useful, specially for those who are ver bad connected, like us, for us meeting and working face to face advances the work greatly, while commercial people often leave much closer or have better ways to accomplish things on the distance. 
	I think, and I expressed this since my first intercessional, that this is not being met, that the agendas are not properly arranged and that it does seem a ver improvised thing. For once, it has’t improved at all the way that the NCHP coordinate their interest against the CHP, which should be the MAIN issue in those meetings. It has been so far a very “light” introduction/discussion, but, in the last one in Iceland, I think there was a least an honest try when specific subject where arranged and presented. I think that if the agenda works around that, it is beneficial to the community, and it also gives a fourth opportunity for face to face work for internal matters.
	I don’t know how much this cost, and probably we could do much better things with the money, but if you see all ICANN expenses, this is not the one that makes less sense, a high level meeting of a reduced and representative team of the GNSO Council and Constituencies should make sense.

	So, in conclusion, I support the idea of the intercessional, but with a lot of things to change, add and try. Among those things, I would add a better track of things accomplished. I do not know if it is neccesarry to have a transcript for transparency, I think having an open mic in one meeting to more “freely” discuss things inc confidence can help to break silos, and since all other this are in transcript and open databases, it is hardly a problem to know “what our representatives are doing”. The voting and real debates, the documents and all other matter are already open. 

Cheers,
Martín Silva

> On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Sa
> m Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
> 
> I want to thank Olevie and Remmy for opening up this discussion about the ICANN Intersessional meetings.
> 
> Having attended two ICANN Intersessionals, one at ICANN's expense and one at my own expense, I am left more with questions than with answers on the usefulness of the Intersessionals.
> 
> First, they are expensive, both in terms of ICANN costs and the costs to participants. This is particularly true for NPOC/NCSG/NCUC participants who have to take time away from jobs and other tasks. For others, in the contracted and non-contracted commercial constituencies, the time and costs are usually treated as part of their paid time and work. This imbalance occurs for ICANN meetings as well, and there is no simple cure for that imbalance. For me that means that intersessionals have to be evaluated in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness for the subsequent for work of ICANN, in working groups and subsequent ICANN conferences. For the NCSG constituencies "is the gain worth the pain?". What is the evidence of improved efficiency and effectiveness for subsequent ICANN work? That is the question I have, and at most all I have heard is personal opinions (by participants) on the usefulness of the meetings.
> 
> Remmy has repeated the oft cited mantra that "this kind of Meeting creates [a] distinct enabling environment for cross-group or constituents collaboration.".  That assertion is yet to be tested with any rigor. I will not belabor this point and only observe that I have not sensed any improvement in either working group discussions or the subsequent ICANN meeting discussions on the topics discussed at the intersessionals. Neither have I seen either a deeper understanding of the conflicting positions of other constituencies, or evidence of intersessional fostered compromises being tabled to improve progress in working groups and at ICANN conferences.
> 
> The Intersessionals may be a pleasant, albeit costly, experience for those who participate, but we need better evidence that they are worth the effort and expense. I would hope that my assessment in the previous paragraph is wrong, and based in inadequate evidence, and I am more than ready to reverse my assessment in the face of evidence. What do the rest of my NPOC colleagues think about this? What is the evidence?
> 
> Sam Lanfranco
> NPOC/csih
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Npoc-discuss mailing list
> Npoc-discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss