<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review
It ain't easy. Most of us have day jobs too, and I know how slammed everyone
is doing job work and GNSO work trying to get both sets in shape before a long
flight to somewhere on the planet.
I believe as a matter of practicality, however, something has to adjust.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Fri 7/13/2012 8:15 AM
To: Mason Cole
Cc: Thomas Rickert; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review
Thanks Mason.
On the brainstorming session, that is meant to generate useful free-flowing
discussion. What we've found in past wrap-ups is that it was precisely because
these were open discussions with no set adjectives beforehand that they ended
up being useful.
On the more general issue of work management, I have always pushed for us to do
more work onlist. However, it has to be said that this is not happening as much
as I'd like, which seems to imply that people are finding hard to focus on the
list and that we really need to have them captive, as is the case at ICANN
meeting, to get their full attention...
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT
Le 13 juil. 2012 à 17:06, Mason Cole a écrit :
Stephane --
How about starting from the top down? What is it the council intends
to accomplish for the week in Toronto? The answer to that question will inform
the structure of the week.
Council work grew backward into Saturday and Sunday a few years ago
because of the volume of work. If the council doesn't intend to self-regulate
its own work, those two days will be insufficient and we'll be looking at three
days of prep instead of two. We need a new way to manage our work burden and
prepare for interactions at meetings. And now we're trying to fit
brainstorming (which is a worthy activity) into a calendar already too full to
handle.
The questions I would ask are these:
- We are brainstorming so that what happens? (I'm all for it as long as
it's productive.)
- Is there an alternative way to prepare for the Toronto week so that
we free some time for brainstorming?
I suggest we answer the first in as detailed a ways as possible, and
consider the second. Perhaps starting very early (well before Toronto) we can
prepare at least some of the work before we arrive at the meeting. Yes, I
realize the month before a meeting has crushing workloads, but if we don't do
something, the alternative is more punishing -- two full prep days Sat and Sun,
our full constituency day Tuesday, our public meeting Wednesday, and wrap-up
Thursday. And that's just the administration -- it doesn't include other
GNSO-related business (WG meetings, joint meeting with ccNSO, etc.).
I am happy to help with this process. It may be that we change how we
manage our work during Toronto and beyond.
Mason
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Tue 7/10/2012 1:46 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Action items from Prague / GNSO Review
Hi Stéphane,
thanks for your feedback.
Just two points:
Re Fridays: I guess it is not getting Fridays back for the sake of
getting Fridays back, but to provide some space for people to think out of the
box.
I would agree that the format would be too constraining for the GNSO
Council. However, this was designed for the community as such, not the GNSO
Council (which is why I said that it could be considered off-topic). For the
whole community, I guess that some structure is needed and the reports are
meant to fill in the rest of the community that was not present in the breakout
session. However, your point is well taken that the participants of the
breakout sessions might chose just to talk confidentially and have nothing
documented.
Best,
Thomas
Am 10.07.2012 um 22:33 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
Thanks Thomas.
Thanks for starting this discussion. I think it's a great one
to have, and I will respond in my personal capacity only.
I am surprised that people are so keen to reinstate Fridays. It
amazes me how uncomfortable with change people seem to be. IMO, the simple
truth is that ICANN meetings could go on for 3 weeks and we'd still not have
enough time to cover everything we'd like to. So a line has to be drawn
somewhere. I continue to applaud Steve's decision to cut Fridays and to draw
that line, so I would not be in favour of bringing a full day of meetings back
to Fridays.
On the format you suggest for discussions, I find it well
thought out but constraining. I would much rather have free discussion than a
format that is so pre-ordered, right down to the requirement to provide a
written report at the end. I think what we in the GNSO have found is that the
great nature of our wrap-up discussions is that they are free. No agenda, no
minutes, no report.
Hope that helps get the discussion going.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT
Le 9 juil. 2012 à 18:11, Thomas Rickert a écrit :
Stéphane, all,
first of all, thanks for the letter to Fadi!
As regards time to discuss, I would like to share some
thoughts with you.
In Prague, Mary, Bill, Chuck and Bertrand hat a good
informal conversation about this very subject and were brainstorming if and
what could potentially be done on Fridays. I guess that is what Bill alluded to
when talking about "ICANN generally, not just GNSO".
Bertrand asked me to write down my ideas on this, which
I did and which you find below. Please bear with me if you regard this as off
topic as it does not deal with the GNSO Council meeting agenda, but I thought
it might be of interest.
***
Preface:
It is felt by part of the community that the ICANN
agenda is usually packed and does not allow for in-depth discussions
particularly when it comes to "visionary" or strategic topics. Also, there may
be the need to provide a forum for discussions that may or may not be on the
agenda during ICANN meetings or where another format than the public forum is
needed.
With this proposal, I would like to outline a potential
format to meet the above needs and encourage broader and more active
participation.
Offering the possibility to discuss face to face and in
depth
- in small groups
- on particular questions and
- topics that are more of a strategic or niche character
may be useful to reach out to those members of the
community that would usually not speak up or that do not have the resources to
regularly engage in groups or projects.
How to pick topics and introduce the format?
It may be worthwhile having a session on Monday to
explain the format and invite the community to propose subjects to be discussed
on Friday. The proposing person should write a brief summary of the topic he or
she wishes to discuss including a bit of background information, if deemed
useful. There should be a character limit, e.g. to 500 characters.
For the first attempt, I would suggest to keep the
subjects completely open except for the fact that there needs to be relevance
to ICANN's role or the broader subject of Internet Governance. For future
events, a broad topic could be proposed to give the whole session one theme.
The deadline for collecting topics should be COB on
Tuesday. This would allow for the individual groups to discuss potential topics
on Tuesdays. Attendees should then have the opportunity to review the proposed
subjects on Wednesday and Thursday and prepare for the discussion.
The proposed subjects should be published on ICANN's
website.
What could a "new Friday" look like?
The format would roughly look like as follows:
1. Plenary
The day should start with a plenary session in which
the format of the day is explained.
Those who have proposed subjects will get 2 mins each
to introduce the subject.
Afterwards, a show of hands of the participants will be
carried out to determine how many attendees are interested in the individual
subjects.
To start with, I would plan for 5 subjects and have 5
rooms prepared with a whiteboard for breakout sessions.
Rooms will then be allocated and announced for the
breakout sessions.
It is not unlikely that there will be more than 5
topics. However, it is also not unlikely that some niche topics only find the
interest of a few people. These groups might be able to continue their
discussion at the venue even though there is not a reserved meeting room.
2. Breakout Sessions
The breakout sessions should be chaired by staff or
other persons that have skills in moderating discussions. They need not be
experts in the subject matter - in fact it may be an advantage if they are not
knowledgable in the area concerned. The chair would not only moderate the
discussion, but also keep some notes and act as rapporteur.
The chair/ rapporteur should
- make sure to ask the participants whether there are
any confidentiality requirements;
- summarize the views exchanged on the subject matter;
- reach agreement in the group on a statement on what
the outcome / next steps should be.
As regards the last point, the outcome of the session
is completely open. It may well be that a group gathers and concludes that
there should not be any further steps. Other results may be requests to a
respective body inside ICANN to further consider the topic and potentially
provide for a more formal forum to work on the subject.
3. Reconvening of the Plenary
In the plenary, the chairs / rapporteurs briefly report
in 5-10 minutes each about the outcome of the breakout sessions. There should
be a brief q&a after each report to allow other community members to provide
their input.
After the session, the chairs / rapporteurs will
provide ICANN with a short written report that will be published on ICANN's
website. The duty of the chair / rapporteur ends here.
The discussions should be punctual and the result of
the sessions should NOT be that new groups are institutionalized there or other
deliverables beyond the reports are produced.
***
Best,
Thomas
Am 06.07.2012 um 21:18 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
This already features as a discussion item for
the next meeting. If Councillors wish to pursue this discussion on the list
before then, please do so.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT
Le 6 juil. 2012 à 19:18, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I strongly believe it is way to early
for a review. Let's reserve this subject for a discussion on the next Council
call before setting up the group.
Sent with Good (www.good.com
<http://www.good.com/> )
-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder
[mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 12:41 PM
Eastern Standard Time
To: Winterfeldt, Brian
Cc: Wendy Seltzer; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Action items
from Prague / GNSO Review
Is there support from others for the
creation of a group?
I would think that the group would need
to be formalised as a DT, with a charter. Although you may wish to bring the
review forward Wendy, others clearly feel we should be doing exactly the
opposite. With such strong divergence of views, we must ensure that the
mechanism we use to discuss this issue is unambiguous and accountable.
Stéphane
Envoyé de mon iPhone4
Le 6 juil. 2012 à 16:26, "Winterfeldt,
Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
I am happy to join Wendy as
apart of the small group as well.
Best,
Brian
Brian J. Winterfeldt
Partner
bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx
Steptoe
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012
6:34 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Action
items from Prague / GNSO Review
On 07/01/2012 07:00 AM,
Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
GNSO Review
We have discussed two possible
alternatives: drafting a request to the SIC to delay the review and creating a
small group to look at this issue. What do we want to do?
I volunteer to be part of a
small group discussing the review. I favor
*advancing* rather than
delaying the review, as well as helping the SIC to frame it to address the
challenges and barriers to consensus-building that stem from our current siloed
structure.
--Wendy
--
Wendy Seltzer --
wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society
Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H.
(i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas
Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn
Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0
Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56
Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66
mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de <http://www.anwaelte.de/>
___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn
Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0
Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56
Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66
mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|