Re: [council] Letter to James Bladel_13Apr16.pdf

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Several points very well made, James.

Thanks for that.

Amr

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 6:49 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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:   <image001.png> Facebook   <image002.png> LinkedIn   
> <image003.png> 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
>>  
>  
> <image001.png><image002.png><image003.png>