RE: [council] Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it should be one big 'shebang'; otherwise we will end up
duplicating to much information and will have less time for interaction
and presentation with each group.  One idea a few of us discussed in San
Juan was to have one or two committee members take one or a small group
of recommendations, give and overview and entertain questions.  All
committee members could participate in the discussion.

You are absolutely correct Liz that we need to give lots of notice,
probably 2-3 months at least.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:55 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA
> 
> Hello Chuck and everyone
> 
> Great thoughts.  I wonder if the Council could think further 
> about the different audiences that need to addressed?  Is it 
> the Council's/ Committee's intention to one big shebang or do 
> more bespoke presentations for different audiences.
> 
> Given our regular scheduling challenges it would be really 
> great to hear about what is first priority and receive 
> suggestions about how to structure sessions which are most 
> useful for all involved?
> 
> Of course, we can do whatever the Council is happy with but 
> plenty of prior notice gives us the best chance of putting 
> everything into a format that will be successful.
> 
> Liz
> .....................................................
> 
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10 Jul 2007, at 18:55, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I am one who strongly advocates an extensive tutorial session  
> > regarding
> > the new gTLD recommendations in L.A.  One of the things that was
> > terribly obvious in San Juan was the large amount of 
> misunderstanding
> > and confusion about the full set of recommendations. We only had  
> > time to
> > focus on a few and there was not enough interaction.  If we do not  
> > have
> > time to answer people's questions from all parts of the community,  
> > I am
> > afraid that there may be reservations about moving the process  
> > forward.
> > On the other hand, if we have plenty of time for interactive  
> > discussions
> > about peoples' concerns, then I believe that most will become much  
> > more
> > comfortable with the work we have done.
> >
> > I also believe that it would be very good to schedule such a  
> > session so
> > that GAC members and Board members can participate.  The GAC will
> > undoubtedly develop a statement in L.A. regarding new gTLDs in  
> > response
> > to the Board report that will be sent to them in September; the more
> > opportunity they have to gain understanding the better.  
> Also, it was
> > clear in San Juan that several Board members had 
> misconceptions about
> > the full set of recommendations, so it is critical that 
> they also get
> > their questions answered.
> >
> > We need to recognize that most of us have been working with this for
> > over a year and a half.  We have grappled with all of the 
> issues that
> > people are raising but it is not possible to adequately 
> deal with them
> > for those who have not been part of the process in a two hour  
> > session or
> > for that matter in a four hour session.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged,
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly  
> > prohibited. If
> > you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:21 PM
> >> To: Council GNSO
> >> Subject: [council] Background for agenda Item 8 - Planning for LA
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> Item 8: Initial planning for LA (10 min)
> >>>
> >>> 8.1 Review suggestion for full day equivalent session on New gTLD
> >>> recommendations It has been suggested that it would be
> >> useful to do a
> >>> full day's meeting (perhaps split into two sessions on
> >> different days)
> >>> to cover all of the recommendations in the New gTLD PDP
> >> that will have
> >>> been sent on to the board by then. Different council members could
> >>> take leadership of discussion section on each of the
> >> recommendations.
> >>
> >> The reason for this suggestion is that the recommendations
> >> will have been sent on to the board by this time and the
> >> subject matter will be under discussion during the meeting.
> >> The thought was that some of the recommendations are complex
> >> and would gain from a council explanation of the thinking
> >> behind the resolutions and the implications for
> >> implementation.  This session would be cast as an extended
> >> tutorial in terms of explanation and Q&A.
> >>
> >> The council needs to decide if we support this
> >> recommendation.  If so, we need to start planning.  One issue
> >> that has come up regarding this session is the reality of a
> >> crowded M-F schedule.  An option that has been mentioned
> >> involves doing this session on Sunday before the meeting.
> >> This would mean either cutting the GNSO pre-session work to a
> >> single day, which may not be a problem, or starting earlier
> >> - on Friday.  The council should decide on this as soon as
> >> possible in order to allow announcements and scheduling if we
> >> decide that we want to do this.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 8.2 - suggestion for restructuring Public Forum + Public meetings
> >>>
> >>> Proposal to try an experiment with the Public Forum and
> >> public council
> >>> meeting in LA. Instead of the current arrangement of a meeting for
> >>> listening and then a meeting for talking, we could divide a 4 hour
> >>> meeting up into topical sections. Each topic could then be
> >> structured
> >>> to include:
> >>> - Constituency Overview on the Topic
> >>> - Public comment on the topic
> >>> - Council discussion and resolution on the Topic.
> >>
> >> This recommendation comes out of a desire to respond to the
> >> frustration expressed in the GSNO Open Forum in SJ.
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> a.
> >>
> >>
> 
>