Dear Council colleagues, 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:
Farzaneh
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
Thanks Donna, Comments inline:
Le 17 nov. 2017 à 03:13, Austin, Donna via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi All
Great to see you all in Abu Dhabi. I trust you’ve all settled back in to your home timezones.
I wanted to kick off some discussion about the Cross Community Discussions Sessions for Puerto Rico.
I think a few of us expressed some concern that identifying possible topics by 30 November 2017, was too early given that the meeting is not until mid-March 2018. I still subscribe to that and would ask that there be some flexibility to review the topics again in late January to see if there are new issues that may be more important.
Agree
I agree too.
However, I would like to put in a ‘place-holder’ for a Cross Community Discussion Session for one of the GNSO PDP WGs. We have a number underway at the moment and there is the possibility that one or two of these efforts will be at a point in their deliberations where the opportunity for a Cross Community Discussion Session would be timely. I appreciate that the Puerto Rico meeting is not a Policy/Outreach Forum, but as the PDP WGs work to a set timetable I would ask for some leeway in this regard.
I’d also like to continue our discussion about Cross Community Discussion Sessions (Sessions), in particular the format and purpose. This seems to be the topic that always generates the most angst amongst this group and now that we’ve had a few goes at it, it might be time to revisit. I am concerned that we are in some way being hamstrung by what we think these Sessions are supposed to be rather than taking a look at the sessions conducted to date and thinking about what has worked well, what we could improve upon, and perhaps coming up with some level principles for the Sessions that we could agree on moving forward.
For example, I don’t personally subscribe to the view that every SO/AC has to be represented on a panel to convey their point of view. This might be helpful if the purpose of the Session is to be ‘informational’, but if the intent of the Session is to garner community views on a particular topic or find a path forward to resolve a difficult situation then I don’t believe that a panel of talking heads will achieve that goal. In Johannesburg facilitators were used for the geographic names discussion, which appeared to work well and by all accounts achieved the objectives of those who organized the session. Is this an approach that could be adopted for future Sessions?
Unfortunately this will open the way for one group to dominate the
discussion by choosing the facilitator on their own and then facilitators miraculously become speakers. If facilitators don't do anything other than just moderating, reading questions and trying to stimulate a discussion then that's fine but I am skeptical whether this can actually happen. so two minutes interventions from the community members with no one on the panel other than the facilitators. Now, who would set the scene? The facilitators? Since they might be from a certain SO/AC then they might not be neutral.
I still think having interested SO/AC members on the panel is not a bad thing and it went well during Abu Dhabi.
Do we want these Sessions to be decisional? There has been some very good discussions in some of the Sessions to date, but I’m not confident that any of the suggestions or decisions were captured and if they were, that there is any agreement on who should be responsible for follow-up. Is this something we think should be established upfront?
My understanding is that decisions are never taken during a cross community session. Those sessions are for debate and the discussion may impact decisions in working groups or other parties working on the topic and habilitated to take decisions.
I agree with Tijani and I think they should not be decisional at all.
One of the original ideas behind these Sessions was that they be non-conflicted to free up the whole community during a meeting to participate in these Sessions. In the time of the IANA Transition discussions we were certainly able to carve out substantial chunks of time on the schedule for community discussions. However, more recently we have had trouble maintaining this as there are few topics that seem to rise to a level of interest for the whole community. To that end, should we be rethinking this requirement and perhaps run two Sessions concurrently when it makes sense to do so?
Also, today, we still have topics like GDPR/Whois/RDS that are of interest for the whole community. These session used to be called « Hot Topic Session ». I think we always have hot topics to debate collectively (no in our silos). Another exemple of such topics is the new GTLD subsequent procedures and especially the geographic names
I suggested during our meeting in Abu Dhabi that ICANN org also have an opportunity to identify a topic for these Sessions and I would reiterate that suggestion here in the hope that we can agree to implement this for Puerto Rico.
About policy??? If it is not, I think they did in Abu Dhabi (Session called « Open Q&A with ICANN Organization Executive Team »)
I hope not about policy! we can invite them to our CCs but does not sound good to me that they organize CCs on policy ...
I look forward to your comments/input and I hope that you will read my email in the spirit of collaboration in which it is meant. I believe that as representatives of our respective groups we have an obligation to try to make the most of our time together at ICANN meetings and to use the opportunity provided through the non-conflicted Cross Community Discussion Sessions to have open community dialogue on issues that are important to individual SO/ACs and ultimately the broader community, ICANN org and ICANN Board.
Agree
Donna Vice Chair, GNSO Council
*From:* soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces@icann.org <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Susie Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:41 AM *To:* soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org; team-leade rs@icann.org; Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>; Kathy Schnitt <kathy.schnitt@icann.org>; Kimberly Carlson < kimberly.carlson@icann.org>; Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@icann.org>; Gulten Tepe <gulten.tepe@icann.org>; Mario Aleman <mario.aleman@icann.org>; Maria Otanes < maria.otanes@icann.org>; Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber@icann.org>; Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra@icann.org>; Maryam Bakoshi < maryam.bakoshi@icann.org>; Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>; Patrik Fältström <paf.4711@gmail.com>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Sally Costerton <sally.costerton@icann.org>; Carlos Reyes < carlos.reyes@icann.org>; Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>; Tom Dale <tom@acig.com.au>; Pierre Dandjinou <pierre.dandjinou@icann.org>; GACLEADERSHIP <gac-leadership@icann.org>; Zoe Bonython < zoefrabon@gmail.com>; David Olive <david.olive@icann.org>; Paul Diaz < pdiaz@pir.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; amack < amack@amglobal.com>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; Mary Wong < mary.wong@icann.org>; Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso@icann.org>; Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>; Steve Chan < steve.chan@icann.org>; James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; Pamela Smith <pamela.smith@icann.org>; John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Breakfast Meeting - ICANN61 SO/AC Scheduling Kick-Off
Dear Community Leaders:
As promised, below please find the draft agenda:
*ICANN61 SO/AC SCHEDULING KICK-OFF MEETING* *Thursday, 2 November 2017* *08:00-09:00* *Capital Suite 03*
*Agenda*
1. *Welcome – David Olive*
1. *Schedule Production Calendar & Block Schedule Review – Tanzanica King*
1. *Cross-Community Topic Sessions – Tanzanica King*
1. *Incremental Changes to the Meeting Strategy – Sally Costerton*
1. *Future Dates for ICANN Meeting – Tanzanica King*
1. *ICANN61 - Puerto Rico – Nick Tomasso*
We will use https://participate.icann.org/abu60-capitalsuite3-c <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__participate.icann.org_a...> for the Adobe Connect room.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Susie
Susie Johnson Policy Operations Specialist and Executive Assistant to Sr. VP, Policy Development ICANN www.icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMFAw&c...> Cell: 310.383.1240 <(310)%20383-1240> Skype: susie.johnson.icann
_______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
_______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
_______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning
_______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning