Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] - ICANN61 - council

Nov. 28, 2017

      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

Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] - ICANN61

Heather Forrest

Michele Neylon - Blacknight

Mary Wong

Austin, Donna

tags

participants (4)