[Npoc-discuss] NPOC position on the Intersessional meetings

[Olévié Kouami]

Thank you for your feedback.
It's noted.
Cheers !

Le 24 juil. 2017 17:39, "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
a écrit :

>         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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20170724/9a750512/attachment.html>