All, OK....Gabi's email was as a result of a conversation with me. I had received feedback from a number of people that we should try to ensure that we had some variety in these presentations and not just have the same people presenting time after time. I was also concerned about the lack of structure. So, leaving the time allocated aside for a minute, let's talk principles. There, I my view, 2 types of update that fit into this section of our meetings. First is a number of 'this is what we've done lately' updates and second is a number of 'some exciting things have happened since last we met' updates. I think that the first type should be, in the first instance, available to those ccs from the region in which the meeting takes place whereas the second should be open. I also think that there should be a limit. Can we agree on that principle and then move on to discuss time allocated per presentation and for the whole? Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA Australia's Domain Name Administrator ceo@auda.org.au www.auda.org.au Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Patricio Poblete Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2008 13:28 To: Oscar A. Robles-Garay Cc: lesley@nominet.org.uk; Gabriella Schittek; ccnso-council@icann.org; owner- ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] text reg. ccTLD update session
While I agree with Lesley and with Oscar that we should avoid sending the message that we do not want participation, I think that it is a good idea to offer two options for would-be speakers: "in depth" presentations or "quick update" presentations. Obviously, there cannot be too many of the longer ones, so we should encourage people to try to fit what they want to say in the shorter format.
Patricio
Oscar A. Robles-Garay wrote:
I fully support Lesley's words.
Maybe we should try to accomodate more presentations like this (ccTLD update sessions) and less non-value-perceived discussions in other issues, I think we could find many supporters.
When times come to discuss really, really relevant policy issues, then it will be obvious that we need to.
Oscar
At 08:19 a.m. 28/11/2008, lesley@nominet.org.uk wrote:
Hi Gabi,
I have a strong concern that the proposed text gives the impression that we are seeking to limit this aspect of the ccNSO work.
As many Councillors will recall, a number of the recommendations on their way from the Participation WG (when I find the capacity to finish the final report) are about improving the value of the ccNSO and ccNSO meetings to ccTLD managers.
Providing an improved structure for this information exchange is good, but by only allocating 50 minutes for this (which is what your email seems to suggest) would not seem to be so good.
Regards,
Lesley
owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on 28/11/2008 08:34:47:
Dear Councillors,
Below is some text which I was planning to send out to the members list regarding the ccTLD update session during the ccNSO meetings. Should you have any objections or concerns, please, let me know by Tuesday, 2nd December.
Thanks,
Gabi
--
Dear all,
The ccTLD Update session is an important part of the ccNSO meeting agenda where the participants have a chance to learn more about ccTLDs from around the world. However, as we have more and more interested speakers for this session, we felt that we need to give it a slight structure.
For the upcoming ccNSO meeting in Mexico and following ccNSO meetings, we are therefore suggesting following format:
- Presentations from ccTLDs which have something to report on new developments within their registry will be prioritised, but we can only allow for three such presentations. - "Status update" presentations will be limited to a maximum of two speakers per meeting. Preference will be given to registries that have not given any update within the last 12 months. - Each presenter will have 10 minutes for their presentation.
We regret that we need to put a limit on the number of presentations, however, we hope you understand that these changes are necessary in order to be able to use the meeting time as efficiently as possible.