Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting. I'll kick it off with my thoughts: 1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show". 2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. 3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. Alan
My thoughts: On 24 Jun 2015, at 4:58 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show”. I think it was, in part, because of the subject matter so I’m not sure that the same format would yield the same results next time.
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. I prefer the format to a table of everyone facing the audience and then talking to each other! Beyond that, the whole point is for ALAC to talk to the Board. The Thursday afternoon event is where the public can ask questions.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. No - if the talk is flowing, so much the better
Holly
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At 23/06/2015 03:34 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
My thoughts: On 24 Jun 2015, at 4:58 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show". I think it was, in part, because of the subject matter so I'm not sure that the same format would yield the same results next time.
Good point.
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take
because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. I prefer the format to a table of everyone facing the audience and then talking to each other! Beyond that, the whole point is for ALAC to talk to the Board. The Thursday afternoon event is where the public can ask questions.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few
of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. No - if the talk is flowing, so much the better
And when one person starts a monologue that is off topic?
Holly
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I agree to all points. We are not so many, that only VIPs should be able to talk. To avoid Monologues a timer for 2 minutes seems appropriate. Am 23.06.15 um 15:58 wrote Alan Greenberg:
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show".
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I looked like a closed circle we were only observers in. Steve Crocker and Fadi Chehade had their backs to us. Honestly, terrible. On 6/23/15 4:40 PM, Jimmy Schulz wrote:
I agree to all points. We are not so many, that only VIPs should be able to talk. To avoid Monologues a timer for 2 minutes seems appropriate.
Am 23.06.15 um 15:58 wrote Alan Greenberg:
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show".
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com Fisher College, Criminal Justice Division Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Twitter: @Knujon
I agree with what’s been raised, and I would include - if we are going to have a round circle setting, it should be open to ANYONE from the ALAC and not just limited to the ALT + 'who ever they choose to invite’. Not acceptable. On a broader and more strategic perspective, I also feel the meeting was another “ALAC looking fo more money meeting” - We should have more positive messages to the Board. Raf On 23 Jun 2015, at 16:45, gbruen@knujon.com<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com> wrote: I looked like a closed circle we were only observers in. Steve Crocker and Fadi Chehade had their backs to us. Honestly, terrible. On 6/23/15 4:40 PM, Jimmy Schulz wrote: I agree to all points. We are not so many, that only VIPs should be able to talk. To avoid Monologues a timer for 2 minutes seems appropriate. Am 23.06.15 um 15:58 wrote Alan Greenberg: I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting. I'll kick it off with my thoughts: 1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show". 2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. 3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) -- Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com> 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com<http://www.knujon.com/> Fisher College, Criminal Justice Division Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org<http://naralo.org/>) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Twitter: @Knujon _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com<http://www.symanteccloud.com/> ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
Dear Alan, all, I was not aware of: " ...the planned intent was to have only the people at the table participate." And find this problematic, why should only some selected (?) people speak. Maybe I missed the point when this was agreed, but I would have strongly objected. If we have the claim to be equal footed within the multistakeholder environment, why do we introduce hierarchies among our self? I have no problem with some people only sitting on a panel or whatever, but not being allowed to speak is the wrong sign. A comment: I found it important to mention the visa problems of our member Beran, but after Fadi made a really constructive proposal the discussion could have been finished. We can take him by his word now and this proposal would really be a way out of such miseries. I would support a timer, also to be introduced in our ALAC meetings. Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juni 2015 20:58 An: ALAC Betreff: [ALAC] Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting. I'll kick it off with my thoughts: 1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show". 2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate. 3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
+1 Sandra about being more inclusive of others for input if they wanted to add anything, and a timer... but at least the Board were trying something different. Pity about Steve and Fadi having their backs to the audience, but they didn't start the cameras up until half way through so that the audience could see all the speakers. One of the disadvantages of a "round" table. Steve did mention that they too had had lots of volunteers for their limited places. Also I guess it depends on what the topics are and who has something of any significance to say. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, sandra hoferichter <info@hoferichter.eu> wrote:
Dear Alan, all, I was not aware of: " ...the planned intent was to have only the people at the table participate." And find this problematic, why should only some selected (?) people speak. Maybe I missed the point when this was agreed, but I would have strongly objected. If we have the claim to be equal footed within the multistakeholder environment, why do we introduce hierarchies among our self?
I have no problem with some people only sitting on a panel or whatever, but not being allowed to speak is the wrong sign.
A comment: I found it important to mention the visa problems of our member Beran, but after Fadi made a really constructive proposal the discussion could have been finished. We can take him by his word now and this proposal would really be a way out of such miseries.
I would support a timer, also to be introduced in our ALAC meetings.
Sandra
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juni 2015 20:58 An: ALAC Betreff: [ALAC] Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show".
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hi all, I agree with what has been said by all. Let’s not forget this was an exercise and for conversations in the hallways with a couple of Board members, I believe they didn’t like it very much either. Yes, absolutely, to have any ALAC member speak. Yes to the timer. Yes to having the conversation moving once we have advanced on the subject of discussion. I respectfully disagree with the perception of this being just another ALAC petition for money. I believe that whilst money could well solve part of the problem that was discussed, it definitely is much more than money behind it. I think it was a matter of principles and strengthening the MSM within our own community which unintentionally ended benefiting the ICANN wide community as the emergency fund will be set for all SO/ACs and that, from my point of view, is great news for all. Some might well not need it but the intent to help is there however. As per distribution of seats, I think having a setup similar to that of the ALAC would work and not only be perceived but actually be more open. Best regards, León
El 23/06/2015, a las 17:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> escribió:
+1 Sandra about being more inclusive of others for input if they wanted to add anything, and a timer... but at least the Board were trying something different.
Pity about Steve and Fadi having their backs to the audience, but they didn't start the cameras up until half way through so that the audience could see all the speakers. One of the disadvantages of a "round" table.
Steve did mention that they too had had lots of volunteers for their limited places. Also I guess it depends on what the topics are and who has something of any significance to say.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, sandra hoferichter <info@hoferichter.eu <mailto:info@hoferichter.eu>> wrote: Dear Alan, all, I was not aware of: " ...the planned intent was to have only the people at the table participate." And find this problematic, why should only some selected (?) people speak. Maybe I missed the point when this was agreed, but I would have strongly objected. If we have the claim to be equal footed within the multistakeholder environment, why do we introduce hierarchies among our self?
I have no problem with some people only sitting on a panel or whatever, but not being allowed to speak is the wrong sign.
A comment: I found it important to mention the visa problems of our member Beran, but after Fadi made a really constructive proposal the discussion could have been finished. We can take him by his word now and this proposal would really be a way out of such miseries.
I would support a timer, also to be introduced in our ALAC meetings.
Sandra
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juni 2015 20:58 An: ALAC Betreff: [ALAC] Feedback on the new ALAC-Board meeting format
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show".
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA> C)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hello all, my comments in-line: On 23/06/2015 15:58, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show".
Quite possibly. I felt that this was a bad case of ALT with the Chair of the Board - except the Chair of the Board was not speaking and it was other Board members speaking. I thought the number of Board member speaking was pretty good.
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate.
See my response above. This is a meeting of the ALAC with the Board. If following the same table format, all 15 ALAC members should have been at the table and it should have been possible to take comments and questions from people not at the table. My head was spinning when I looked down from the ivory tower I was sitting on.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time.
Yes. Good idea. In short, that format did not work for me. As for the topics, I am sorry but we spent nearly 45 minutes on Equitable Access for All Stakeholders which turned into a "give us money" thing. My point of view is that Board members are not able to understand the distinction because many of the are NOT from the Civil Society / Association sector. It's not a criticism, it's just a fact, when you come from the Business sector. As a result the discussion turned into a discussion about Visas - and we've heard that one again and again in the past. I am sorry but I was uninspired hence my total silence. 2nd topic was also an organisational issue - and the main message, asking "why did the ALAC have to wait for the Board to delay the review, rather than being able to speak out that it was to busy to start the review?" was somehow lost in the ocean of words. 3rd topic was barely touched on since we were really pushed for time. Indeed, the agenda says: "NOT a discussion of the substance" - frankly that was the only discussion that I was interested in (had it been about the substance) but we ran out of time. On the issue of time management, since I was not next to Alan, I could not nudge him. No criticism of him either, I have been in that chair and time flies so it is helpful to have someone nudge you to move on. That's the job of a Vice Chair. The round table did not allow for that. Meeting Effectiveness: 3/10. Meeting Relevance: 3/10. Kindest regards, Olivier
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
gbruen＠knujon.com -
Holly Raiche -
Jimmy Schulz -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rafid Fatani -
sandra hoferichter