RE: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

As do I.

 Of course, I say it as someone who will start Helsinki with many of you at the 
CCWG meeting on day 0 of our 4 day meeting.




----------------------------------------
 From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:17 PM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Austin, Donna" 
<Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Cake" <davecake@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf

I agree with both Donna and James on this.



Best,

Keith



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:49 PM
To: Austin, Donna; David Cake
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf



Speaking for only for myself---



After numerous conversations on this, I'm coming around to Donna's point of 
view regarding Meeting B.  Although maybe for different reasons.



If I can be blunt, I think if Meeting B is going to fail, it should fail 
because we followed the MSWG recipe to the letter, and not because we were 
tinkering with the ingredients while the cake was already in the oven. It is 
therefore entirely possible that we come out of Helsinki wondering "what was 
that all about?" and that a few years from now, we reminisce about Meeting B 
over drinks and laugh.



Or, the Helsinki meeting could launch a new era for ICANN, where leaner, 
light-weight events become more common.  Where the summer event is 
laser-focused on policy development, rather than taking on the broader universe 
of Internet  governance, commercial dealmaking,  and organizational 
restructure. Where we take this smaller event on the road to more remote venues 
and connect with the communities already in operation there.  This is the 
potential payoff of Meeting B.



The good news w.r.t. the PDPs that would be eligible for the day-long 
face-to-face meeting under the Pilot Program, is that they're just starting up, 
and not at a critical point in their work plan where they are dependent upon 
the face to face to meet any deadline.  In some ways, this is fortuitous quirk 
of the calendar that allows us some flexility for a Meeting B "trial run."  We 
can move these PDPs to 1- or 2-hours sessions in Helsinki, but preserve the 
full-day option for Meeting A and Meeting C (btw, this exact question was part 
of our discussion on the FY17 Budget).



Anyway, those are just my thoughts.  I realize the GNSO calendar is several 
orders of magnitude more complex than other SO/ACs, but I think we should do 
our best to track the original intent of Meeting B, with no small measure of 
courage for trying something new.



Looking forward to our discussion on this in a few hours.



Thanks-



J.



From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:23
To: David Cake <davecake@xxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf



Hi David, all



If I could make one plea on this topic it is that we go into Meeting B with an 
open mind and save the constructive feedback for after the meeting.



Meeting B will be significantly different from Meetings A and C, in that it is 
intended to be about policy and will be conducted over 4 days. If it transpires 
that Meeting B does not live up to expectations and allow for policy work  to 
be progressed to the extent that this would have been achieved with an 
additional day via the Pilot Program, then we can discuss how to move forward 
to best address any shortcomings.



We need to be careful not to shoot the messenger. Nick is implementing 
recommendations that came from the Meeting Strategy Working Group (a cross 
community work group that had representation from across the community 
including the GNSO and the GAC) and was approved by the Board. As a member of 
the MSWG, I feel very strongly about being able to give Meeting B its best 
opportunity for success or failure.



Thanks for your understanding.



Donna



Donna Austin:Neustar, Inc.
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

Cell:+1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx


----------------------------------------

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.

Follow Neustar:    Facebook    LinkedIn    Twitter

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.











From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Thursday, 14 April 2016 7:14 AM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf



Which means option a) - Nick does not understand what the Pilot Program is, and 
is confusing incorporporating PDP work into meeting B with incorporating the 
Pilot Program into meeting B (which there are no plans to do).



In short, a very disappointing answer.



David





On 14 Apr 2016, at 10:09 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Hi David -



We can confirm with Nick, but I don't think the implication was for the 
face-to-face to encompass an entire day (25%!) of Meeting B.  Only that the 
topic itself would be included in to the schedule/agenda for the Policy Forum.  
Something we can discuss further on our call in a few hours.



Thanks-



J.



From: David Cake <davecake@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:06
To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf



Absorbing the full day Working Groups Pilot program into the schedule implies 
that they believe it is practical to ask Working Group members will take an 
extended period (usually a full day or nearly so for the Pilot Program so far) 
out from an already short and overpacked meeting.



I am finding this hard to understand in terms other than Nick is either a) 
lacking in understanding of what the pilot program consists of and is confusing 
it with more routine policy work or b) has entirely unrealistic ideas about the 
scheduling of working group members or c) is making some kind of joke.



I'd frankly he rather had just said no than make this rather impractical 
suggestion of incorporation.



Regards



David







On 14 Apr 2016, at 5:10 AM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Dear Councillors,



This letter has been published at:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence

http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/tomasso-to-bladel-13apr16-en.pdf



Thank you.

Kind regards,



Glen



De : owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la 
part de James M. Bladel
Envoyé : jeudi 14 avril 2016 04:41
À : GNSO Council List
Objet : [council] FW: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf



Councilor Colleagues -



Please see attached for a letter form Nick Tomasso, responding to our earlier 
request regarding a face-to-face PDP meeting.   During our discussions in 
Marrakech and with smaller groups, we have tried to balance the value of having 
these sessions at ICANN meetings, while trying to remain faithful to the 
intention of the "Meeting B" policy forum concept.



As for Nick's response, I would like to draw your attention to this statement 
in particular:

"It is anticipated that the PDP Working Groups Pilot Program will be absorbed 
into the 'Meeting B' schedule rather than having an additional day specifically 
for that purpose."



I agree that the Policy Forum concept must recognize the importance of 
advancing the work of ongoing PDPs, but would emphasize incorporating these in 
to the 4 day schedule, rather than add an optional 5th day.



I welcome thoughts from others on this topics and Nicks' letter, and I'm 
looking forward to further discussions on tomorrow's call.



Thank you,



J.







From: <owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Tanzanica S. King" 
<tanzanica.king@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 21:26
To: "gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>, "Board-Ops-Team@xxxxxxxxx" 
<board-ops-team@xxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, Sally 
Costerton <sally.costerton@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf



Dear James,



Please find the attached letter from Nick Tomasso concerning your request for 
face-to-face sessions of PDP Working Groups linked to ICANN56.



Best regards,



Tanzanica





----------------------------------------

Tanzanica S. King

Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design

ICANN



Office   +1 310 301 5800

Mobile  +1 310 995 3038

Email    king@xxxxxxxxx

www.icann.org