can somebody remind me what the "Teresa Swinehart Update" item is on Sunday?
this is mostly aimed at David Cake or Jonathan. but any/all are welcome to help out. i’m looking at that Teresa Swinehart Update item on Sunday morning just before the Strat Panel section. i can’t remember what she’s updating us *about* can somebody remind me? sorry to be so dense, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Theresa will be updating us on the MSI panels work before we have our open discussion about them. David On 19 Mar 2014, at 4:33 am, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
this is mostly aimed at David Cake or Jonathan. but any/all are welcome to help out.
i’m looking at that Teresa Swinehart Update item on Sunday morning just before the Strat Panel section. i can’t remember what she’s updating us *about* can somebody remind me?
sorry to be so dense,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Mikey, Recall that we originally sought to have Beth Novack, the chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Strategy Panel attend so that there might be a Q-and-A. This was driven by the initial set of proposals from the Panel and the emergence of "crowdsourcing" as a legitimate way to make policy. Staff will be standing in. Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] can somebody remind me what the "Teresa Swinehart Update" item is on Sunday? From: "David Cake" <dave@difference.com.au> Date: 3/18/14 9:23 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Theresa will be updating us on the MSI panels work before we have our open discussion about them. David On 19 Mar 2014, at 4:33 am, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote: this is mostly aimed at David Cake or Jonathan. but any/all are welcome to help out. i'm looking at that Teresa Swinehart Update item on Sunday morning just before the Strat Panel section. i can't remember what she's updating us *about* can somebody remind me? sorry to be so dense, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
One topic that may be worth raising during the discussion is whether the work of the panels will be expanded to take into account the recent developments. I am particularly interested, how ICANN can develop and implement a truly bottom-up, multistakeholder accountability structure. Is accountability even an issue for the strategy panels? It should be... Volker Am 19.03.2014 12:41, schrieb john@crediblecontext.com:
Mikey, Recall that we originally sought to have Beth Novack, the chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Strategy Panel attend so that there might be a Q-and-A. This was driven by the initial set of proposals from the Panel and the emergence of "crowdsourcing" as a legitimate way to make policy. Staff will be standing in. Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] can somebody remind me what the "Teresa Swinehart Update" item is on Sunday? From: "David Cake" <dave@difference.com.au> Date: 3/18/14 9:23 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Theresa will be updating us on the MSI panels work before we have our open discussion about them. David
On 19 Mar 2014, at 4:33 am, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote:
this is mostly aimed at David Cake or Jonathan. but any/all are welcome to help out. i’m looking at that Teresa Swinehart Update item on Sunday morning just before the Strat Panel section. i can’t remember what she’s updating us *about* can somebody remind me? sorry to be so dense, mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
hi all, one of the nice things about a poor memory, that is failing, is the frequent opportunity to go “oh! i remember now!” :-) oh! i remember now! by the way — i also can’t remember if i shared this little thought exercise i did on an earlier draft of their recommendations — the details are wrong now (i haven’t had time to really grind through their final draft, that’s airplane reading) but the concept still works for me. i’ve attached that little picture to this note. i think their stuff is fine — but i want to evaluate the relevance/usefulness of their proposals along at least three continuums: Goals <—> Tools Participation <—> Policy Making Working Groups <—> SG/Constituencies the little picture i’ve attached only does two dimensions, i thought of the third one later. there may well be more. their work would have been improved by having a few knowledgeable people selected as part of the “expert working group", but hey that’s true for almost all of them. we’ve *got* to defend that “working group” brand better in the future. thanks all. mikey PS. sorry for throwing the NCSG under the bus — i’m quoted as saying that they would be a great place to experiment with Liquid Democracy. nope, i don’t remember saying that (see how handy a failing memory is?), but in that particular instance i also can’t imagine *why* i would have said it. i’ll own the words, there’s no unringing that bell. however... i bet what i *meant* to say, and which i think might be true, is that the *constituencies and SGs of the non-contracted parties house* of the GNSO might be a good place to try some of those things out. mostly, what i was trying to get at is that there are some places where some of those ideas would be a Really Bad Idea (working groups, and the Contracted Parties House). we non-contracted SG/constituencies have a need to broaden our reach and do a better job of preparing people to be effective participants in WGs. some of these ideas might be good things to experiment with. but i like to put myself in the boat with everybody else, not throw some of us under the bus. sorry about that. On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net> wrote:
One topic that may be worth raising during the discussion is whether the work of the panels will be expanded to take into account the recent developments. I am particularly interested, how ICANN can develop and implement a truly bottom-up, multistakeholder accountability structure. Is accountability even an issue for the strategy panels? It should be...
Volker
Am 19.03.2014 12:41, schrieb john@crediblecontext.com:
Mikey,
Recall that we originally sought to have Beth Novack, the chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Strategy Panel attend so that there might be a Q-and-A. This was driven by the initial set of proposals from the Panel and the emergence of "crowdsourcing" as a legitimate way to make policy.
Staff will be standing in.
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] can somebody remind me what the "Teresa Swinehart Update" item is on Sunday? From: "David Cake" <dave@difference.com.au> Date: 3/18/14 9:23 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Theresa will be updating us on the MSI panels work before we have our open discussion about them.
David
On 19 Mar 2014, at 4:33 am, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
this is mostly aimed at David Cake or Jonathan. but any/all are welcome to help out.
i’m looking at that Teresa Swinehart Update item on Sunday morning just before the Strat Panel section. i can’t remember what she’s updating us *about* can somebody remind me?
sorry to be so dense,
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi, I guess I still consider it a useful bag of tricks we can dig into anytime we start figuring out how to do something. I do not think there is any obligation on the GNSO, or anyone else for that matter, to use the content of panel reports unless they look useful. And despite being a Ms.Grinch, though perhaps not the grinchiest grinch, on this whole panel idea, I think there are bunches of ideas worth thinking about. avri On 19-Mar-14 21:00, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
one of the nice things about a poor memory, that is failing, is the frequent opportunity to go “oh! i remember now!” :-)
oh! i remember now!
by the way — i also can’t remember if i shared this little thought exercise i did on an earlier draft of their recommendations — the details are wrong now (i haven’t had time to really grind through their final draft, that’s airplane reading) but the concept still works for me. i’ve attached that little picture to this note.
i think their stuff is fine — but i want to evaluate the relevance/usefulness of their proposals along at least three continuums:
Goals <—> Tools
Participation <—> Policy Making
Working Groups <—> SG/Constituencies
the little picture i’ve attached only does two dimensions, i thought of the third one later. there may well be more.
their work would have been improved by having a few knowledgeable people selected as part of the “expert working group", but hey that’s true for almost all of them. we’ve *got* to defend that “working group” brand better in the future.
thanks all.
mikey
PS. sorry for throwing the NCSG under the bus — i’m quoted as saying that they would be a great place to experiment with Liquid Democracy. nope, i don’t remember saying that (see how handy a failing memory is?), but in that particular instance i also can’t imagine *why* i would have said it. i’ll own the words, there’s no unringing that bell. however...
i bet what i *meant* to say, and which i think might be true, is that the *constituencies and SGs of the non-contracted parties house* of the GNSO might be a good place to try some of those things out. mostly, what i was trying to get at is that there are some places where some of those ideas would be a Really Bad Idea (working groups, and the Contracted Parties House). we non-contracted SG/constituencies have a need to broaden our reach and do a better job of preparing people to be effective participants in WGs. some of these ideas might be good things to experiment with. but i like to put myself in the boat with everybody else, not throw some of us under the bus. sorry about that.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>> wrote:
One topic that may be worth raising during the discussion is whether the work of the panels will be expanded to take into account the recent developments. I am particularly interested, how ICANN can develop and implement a truly bottom-up, multistakeholder accountability structure. Is accountability even an issue for the strategy panels? It should be...
Volker
Am 19.03.2014 12:41, schrieb john@crediblecontext.com:
Mikey, Recall that we originally sought to have Beth Novack, the chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Strategy Panel attend so that there might be a Q-and-A. This was driven by the initial set of proposals from the Panel and the emergence of "crowdsourcing" as a legitimate way to make policy. Staff will be standing in. Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] can somebody remind me what the "Teresa Swinehart Update" item is on Sunday? From: "David Cake" <dave@difference.com.au> Date: 3/18/14 9:23 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Theresa will be updating us on the MSI panels work before we have our open discussion about them. David
On 19 Mar 2014, at 4:33 am, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote:
this is mostly aimed at David Cake or Jonathan. but any/all are welcome to help out. i’m looking at that Teresa Swinehart Update item on Sunday morning just before the Strat Panel section. i can’t remember what she’s updating us *about* can somebody remind me? sorry to be so dense, mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
All, This is where I believe we have got to on this subject: 1. There is a general concern about initiatives that are not community initiated / aka bottom up. This is part of the conversation we may wish to have with Fadi &/or the Board (bearing in mind that Fadi is on the board). 2. It will be helpful to understand exactly where we are with the strategy panels, where the process goes from here and what we (as a Council and within our respective parts of the community) can usefully do to engage with that process. This is a key part of the conversation we can have with Theresa on Sunday. What else could or should we be discussing with Theresa? 3. The Council intends to prepare a written submission as part of the public comment on strategy panels. In particular, we are likely to respond to the work of the MSI panel since that output / work appears to relate closely to that of the GNSO & GNSO Council. Here we can: a. Recognise any value in the work and provide constructive criticism b. Link it to any existing initiatives from the Council c. Link it (if / where appropriate) to the recommendations of ATRT2 Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 20 March 2014 03:05 To: Council Subject: Re: [council] can somebody remind me what the "Teresa Swinehart Update" item is on Sunday? Hi, I guess I still consider it a useful bag of tricks we can dig into anytime we start figuring out how to do something. I do not think there is any obligation on the GNSO, or anyone else for that matter, to use the content of panel reports unless they look useful. And despite being a Ms.Grinch, though perhaps not the grinchiest grinch, on this whole panel idea, I think there are bunches of ideas worth thinking about. avri On 19-Mar-14 21:00, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
one of the nice things about a poor memory, that is failing, is the frequent opportunity to go "oh! i remember now!" :-)
oh! i remember now!
by the way - i also can't remember if i shared this little thought exercise i did on an earlier draft of their recommendations - the details are wrong now (i haven't had time to really grind through their final draft, that's airplane reading) but the concept still works for me. i've attached that little picture to this note.
i think their stuff is fine - but i want to evaluate the relevance/usefulness of their proposals along at least three continuums:
Goals <-> Tools
Participation <-> Policy Making
Working Groups <-> SG/Constituencies
the little picture i've attached only does two dimensions, i thought of the third one later. there may well be more.
their work would have been improved by having a few knowledgeable people selected as part of the "expert working group", but hey that's true for almost all of them. we've *got* to defend that "working group" brand better in the future.
thanks all.
mikey
PS. sorry for throwing the NCSG under the bus - i'm quoted as saying that they would be a great place to experiment with Liquid Democracy. nope, i don't remember saying that (see how handy a failing memory is?), but in that particular instance i also can't imagine *why* i would have said it. i'll own the words, there's no unringing that bell. however...
i bet what i *meant* to say, and which i think might be true, is that the *constituencies and SGs of the non-contracted parties house* of the GNSO might be a good place to try some of those things out. mostly, what i was trying to get at is that there are some places where some of those ideas would be a Really Bad Idea (working groups, and the Contracted Parties House). we non-contracted SG/constituencies have a need to broaden our reach and do a better job of preparing people to be effective participants in WGs. some of these ideas might be good things to experiment with. but i like to put myself in the boat with everybody else, not throw some of us under the bus. sorry about that.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-Systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>> wrote:
One topic that may be worth raising during the discussion is whether the work of the panels will be expanded to take into account the recent developments. I am particularly interested, how ICANN can develop and implement a truly bottom-up, multistakeholder accountability structure. Is accountability even an issue for the strategy panels? It should be...
Volker
Am 19.03.2014 12:41, schrieb john@crediblecontext.com:
Mikey, Recall that we originally sought to have Beth Novack, the chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Innovation Strategy Panel attend so that there might be a Q-and-A. This was driven by the initial set of proposals from the Panel and the emergence of "crowdsourcing" as a legitimate way to make policy. Staff will be standing in. Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] can somebody remind me what the "Teresa Swinehart Update" item is on Sunday? From: "David Cake" <dave@difference.com.au> Date: 3/18/14 9:23 pm To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Council" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Theresa will be updating us on the MSI panels work before we have our open discussion about them. David
On 19 Mar 2014, at 4:33 am, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote:
this is mostly aimed at David Cake or Jonathan. but any/all are welcome to help out. i'm looking at that Teresa Swinehart Update item on Sunday morning just before the Strat Panel section. i can't remember what she's updating us *about* can somebody remind me? sorry to be so dense, mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
David Cake -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Mike O'Connor -
Volker Greimann