Thanks for this detailed background, Marilyn. I expect we will get into some of this on Monday's call, as well as in Dakar? Clearly all of these issues affect ICANN and its development into the global institution that we are all trying to build, so it is important that members give this considerations. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 7:10 PM To: bc - GNSO list; Benedetta BC Secretariat Subject: [bc-gnso] Announcement of Discussion topics in preparation for ICANN Dakar - Strat Plan and ICANN Meetings for the Next Decade Dear BC Members Normally, you will receive ALERTS from our Secretariat. I am writing as chair, about three topics, because the Officers need your input and guidance on these items. These comments are augmentative to the Secretariat's ALERTS, which presently call your attention to open public comments on ICANN's Policy Comments Page. Your input on any of the three items below would be appreciated. 1) Phase II of Public Comments Enhancements 2) ICANN Meetings for the Next Decade 3) Strategic Plan - possible on site consultation in Dakar 1) Phase II of Public Comment Enhancements: In Singapore, a group was launched to consider how to better organize participation in Public Comments. The Manager of Public Participation launched a Focus Group, with participation of one rep per SG. The IPC nominated Jonathan Zuck, who has held this role.. While I did not consider this ideal for the BC, the Focus Group's purpose was to present only prelminary input, with then a public Comment period, and the CSG accepted this appointment, as part of sharing the workload in the CSG. [Keep in mind that the BC holds two of the AoC Review Team appointments from the CSG]. The Public comment period is closing Oct. 15. There are not planned BC wide consensus comments, but BC members may want to provide their individual views on the Report, which can be found on the Public Comment page. This is an important topic, and already two BC members have posted in their personal capacity. My personal comments: I am concerned about the lack of public comments on so many of the topics that ICANN posts for public comment. Example: Originally, for instance, 60-90 minute discussions were held on the Budget/Operating Plan and Strat Plan, and these usually drew 20-25 attendees, as well as Board members, and a deep discussion could develop. ICANN's present approach of dividing into short interactions with the Constituencies has replaced this deeper cross community dialogue, and I personally am not sure that it is a useful approach. But to be fair, staff and Board are struggling to find a better vehicle, and I will note that I am not sure that the CSG has done a good job on these areas. In support of a cross CSG concern, the CSG leadership has created a Budget/Operating Plan working Group, chaired by Chris Chaplow, BC Vice Chair. However, more broadly, a quick visual analysis of the number of comments on key topics often shows that very often, very few comments are received. Exceptions are new gTLD issues. In my view, the Focus Group of five participants was probably too restrictive, but Staff had good intentions. Still, I would urge members to look at the report and try to provide comments. This is a genuine effort to try to be helpful in organizing how information is requested in public comments. There is a larger issue that was not addressed as far as I can tell and that is that calling for Public Comments may actually require more face to face sessions at ICANN meetings. For example, it may be that the Budget and Strat Plan require working sessions at an ICANN meeting, supplemented by remote and online consultation. BC Member To Do: Please post your individual views on this topic within the timeline. We will also add this topic to the BC agenda for the Dakar meeting, but since many of you will not be there in person, it would be helpful to hear from you via email or on our upcoming BC Members calls. 2) ICANN Meetings for the Next Decade The Chair of the Public Participation Committee (PPC ) has invited chairs of constituencies to join Council chairs/ AC chairs, to discuss ICANN meetings. This grew out of a PPC public session in Singapore my comments and that of the ALAC indicated that the PPC needs to undertake broader dialogue on these topics and not restrict interactions to policy chair/issues, since the meetings serve much broader roles. The PPC wants to explore ICANN meetings structure, content, frequency and cost. Four themes will be discussed: * Current needs of the Community from the ICANN meetings * Future ICANN meetings for the Future ICANN community * Efficiency, international [I think they mean global] participation; number and types of meetings * General purpose of specifid IANN group specific [SO/AC/SG meetings] results and accomplishments I have confirmed that I will participate; I'll include Chris as well, but I have asked if additional observers are possible. However, at this point, my priority is that Chris and I work together to gather your input. I want to ask you to consider how meetings presently, or in the future could assist us in increasing meaningful business participation. Sometimes our comments are that we don't like the number of meetings, or that we don't like the selection of locations. Those are relevant points, but I think we need to go beyond that to try to improve the meaningful nature of the meetings. They are a key part of ICANN's legitimacy, and of bringing the full group of stakeholders together. They need to be as effective as possible. For instance, it could be that half a day would be better used to focus on a Budget/Operating Plan or Strat Plan working session on the preceeding week-end; compressing the GNSO Council's working sessions a bit. Recently, the week end sessions haven't actually been tightly packed with full time work, so it could be that some time could be repurposed for a broader, cross ICANN topic. Today, ICANN organizes and supports regional events for contracted parties. We have ocassionally invited ICANN as speakers to events that we have organized. Do we want more support, including possible financial assistance with venue for ocassional BC events, or are we satisfied with a commitment to providing speakers to events that we organize, and direct? Is this the place to promote our business outreach fellowship proposal so that we can build the participation of small business executives on a more consistent basis, and strengthen our global input? ICANN Board and financial staff seem to want to cut meetings out, while my view is that the face to face interactions are the only way that we bring forward the business views, and that for now, three meetings are essential. [an analysis of our attendance is that a higher number of members attend than other constituencies in the CSG and in the NCSG]. 3) Strategic Plan Chris and I will be working on comments on the Strat Plan, but I urge you to read it. It incorporates some of the feedback that we provided in the CSG discussions with the Board in Singapore. Ironically, we are not acknowledged by staff as a contributor, but there is at least a sort of mild acknowledgement our comments on ecosystem interdependencies and some indication that ICANN may become open to working more openly with the business leadership on external threats. Overall, it is much improved from the initial 4-6 page version that we once saw, and it is worth our attention. Comments close in November, but I'd like to be able to address preliminary views during the DAKAR meeting. If you can volunteer to join Chris and myself on the discussions on the Strat Plan and development of BC comments, please email Bene and volunteer. We will also discuss this topic on the upcoming BC Members Calls, in preparation for Dakar. Please note that the purpose of this meeting is to exchange ideas and collect feedback, rather than to reach agreement or make decisions on the various issues that will be discussed. Discussion on all these topics is welcomed, and you can also notify Bene [and Chris and me] if you volunteer to work on the Strat Plan comments. But, please do post in your individual comments on Public Comment enhancements [item 1]. We need to all help to improve that process. Marilyn Cade, Chair