[Npoc-discuss] NPOC position on the Intersessional meetings

[Olévié Kouami]

OK. Thank you Carlos for your inputs.
It's Also noted.

Le 24 juil. 2017 18:26, "Carlos Raul Gutierrez" <crg at isoc-cr.org> a écrit :

> Fully agree with Sam!
>
> Just look across the street and watch wath the Icann organization does for
> the CPH in their joint GDD one week meeting....the divergence between NCPH
> and CPH is becoming and Achilles heel.
>
> What we need is to have fully GNSO focused policy meetings twice a year in
> easily accessible places. The 1st policy meetings was rather good in
> Helsinki. The second one already started trying to please everyone with too
> many sessions and as too far away.
>
> My 2 cents
>
>
>
> Carlos Raúl GUTIERREZ
> Apartado 1571-1000
> San José COSTA RICA
>
> On Jul 24, 2017 08:01, "Sam 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/20170724/497d23eb/attachment.html>