Heather
A couple of personal thoughts
Cross-community sessions are a nice idea, but the way they’ve been handled has been horrible.
The entire proposal and selection process seems to be very opaque and the number of cross-community sessions seems to be problematic as well.
With regard to the proposed topic of PDPs – I personally don’t oppose it.
I am also generally supportive of Greg Shatan’s comments about “ownership” and the organisation of these things and would prefer to see a clear line being drawn between proposing sessions
and “owning” and controlling them.
Or at least let us be upfront about how this is being done so people don’t get the impression that the “community” view is reflected by a session.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday 28 November 2017 at 04:04
To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] - ICANN61
There is an ongoing discussion on the SO/AC leaders list about cross-community topics for ICANN61. Your SGs and Cs should all have recently received a reminder of the deadline for proposing topics:
30 November 2017.
I have excerpted the thread below started by Donna and contributed to by Farzaneh re proposing a GNSO PDP as a cross-community topic. This could be an opportunity to discuss a PDP's initial conclusions
or differences of opinion/issues. If we think the policy development process would benefit from an opportunity for wide community discussion and consultation, this could be an opportunity (IGO/INGO Curative Rights was the first to come to my mind).
Is this something that we want to pursue? If so, needs to be actioned before end Thursday.
Best wishes,
Heather
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] - ICANN61
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org"
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org>,
Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, Mario Aleman <mario.aleman@icann.org>,
Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra@icann.org>,
Patrik Fältström <paf.4711@gmail.com>, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>,
Zoe Bonython <zoefrabon@gmail.com>, Gulten Tepe <gulten.tepe@icann.org>,
Maria Otanes <maria.otanes@icann.org>, GACLEADERSHIP <gac-leadership@icann.org>,
"team-leaders@icann.org" <team-leaders@icann.org>
I think Donna raised a number of excellent points, and I agree with Tijani and Farzaneh's responses. In particular, I think we need to confront
the issue that Farzi raised, which I call the issue of "ownership" of a given session. I'll suggest two or three possible solutions:
1. Make it crystal clear that the proposing SOACetc. does
not own the session. It does not get to determine the slant or the dominant point of view, or the facilitator or the panelists. This should be done by a small cross-community planning team for each CC session, sharing the planning burden and seeking
to put together a well-rounded panel with points and counterpoints well-represented and well-balanced. This does not require every SOACetc. to get a seat at the table, but it does require an understanding and accommodation of the differing (and often, conflicting)
points of view.
OR
2. Acknowledge that some (but not all) of the sessions will be owned by the proposer and will be intended to provide (or at least be dominated by)
one point of view or several largely aligned points of view. Perhaps these could be called
"Community-to-Community" sessions. These could be compared to IGF sessions to some extent. At a following ICANN meeting, another SOACetc. could put together a different C2C session with their "counterpoint" point of view (and neighboring views) dominating.
In each case, the audience will provide the counterpoints, but it will be understood how the panel itself is intended to be chosen and work in practice.
The angst has arisen because fairly "hot" topics have been proposed as Cross-Community sessions, and the tussle arises between those who believe
the proposer gets to shape the session around their views and those who believe the panel should be balanced. A secondary tussle arises because the proposer puts in a lot of effort and believes that those who want a seat at the table (especially later in
the process) are "free-loading". A clear decision in advance would solve the first problem, and quick invitations to the planning process would solve the second.
As for the conflicts/breadth of interest issues, I think we should acknowledge that some topics have interest for virtually every community, while
others may only be of interest to some (but not all) communities. We should manage conflicts accordingly. In other words, if Topic 1 is of interest to communities A,B and C, but not D, E and F, then a second session or sessions of interest to D, E and/or
F can be scheduled against Topic 1. The alternative leaves the less-interested communities with no compelling session to attend during the unconflicted CC Topic time. Perhaps the topics where only some communities are interested could be called
"Multi-Community Sessions (A, B, C)" [where A, B and C are the relevant communities] to distinguish them from true
"Cross-Community"
On a related note, the way that voting in this group is weighted can result in some topics of interest to many or all of the communities grouped
under the GNSO (Registries, Registrars, ISPs, Business, IP, Non-Commercial Users, Non-Profits) but only some of the other communities losing out as Cross-Community topics because the GNSO is only given a single vote. This needs to be addressed in some fashion,
perhaps through the Multi-Community Sessions.
In any event, these are largely "parting notes," as my term of office as IPC President ends November 30. It's been a pleasure working with all
of you and I'm sure we will have many other opportunities to work together in various contexts. You and the IPC will be in the good hands of my successor, Brian Winterfeldt, while Vicky Sheckler will be continuing as Vice President.
Happy Thanksgiving to those celebrating,
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
IPC President
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:36 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
wrote: