About Single Subject Meetings
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- *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.
Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense? Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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.
JZ, it does indeed. But in this case it should not be called a CPWG on a single issue, it should be a single topic discussion open to At-Large folks who are interested in the special topic, regardless whether they are members or not of the CPWG. I think that the CPWG has great merit, but it should not become the overarching “super-WG” - at the risk of having people not engaging in the specific topical WGs. Maybe I am exaggerating because I am just suffering from teleconference overdose, but my feeling is that it cannot continue like that. Cheers, Roberto On 21.05.2020, at 21:18, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense? Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
To which WGs are you referring? Other At-Large WGs or ICANN WGs? I think there’s overlap with ICANN WGs intentionally for us to come up with our own positions and spin on a particular topic but there should NOT be overlap with any At-Large WGs unless I’m missing something. I completely get the fatigue issue but I suppose it’s a function of so much going on at once, at least in my case, not redundancy. I have: NARALO CPWG Single Purpose Calls ALTPLUS ALAC SOAC Chairs+. (ICANN. 68 Planning) At-Large ICANN 68 Planning Capacity Building ICANN Learn Policy Development Course And that’s on top of keeping up with what’s actually going on inside ICANN, GNSO workings groups, Universal Acceptance Metrics, etc. And I’m SURE there are many others with so many more. It’s crazy but I guess it’s also probably keeping me sane at the moment… From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:33 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: "Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail. com>" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings JZ, it does indeed. But in this case it should not be called a CPWG on a single issue, it should be a single topic discussion open to At-Large folks who are interested in the special topic, regardless whether they are members or not of the CPWG. I think that the CPWG has great merit, but it should not become the overarching “super-WG” - at the risk of having people not engaging in the specific topical WGs. Maybe I am exaggerating because I am just suffering from teleconference overdose, but my feeling is that it cannot continue like that. Cheers, Roberto On 21.05.2020, at 21:18, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense? Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
+1 Roberto Cheers, M. _________________________ Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik <mailto:matthias@hudobnik.at> matthias@hudobnik.at <http://www.hudobnik.at/> http://www.hudobnik.at Von: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2020 21:33 An: Jonathan Zuck Cc: CPWG Betreff: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings JZ, it does indeed. But in this case it should not be called a CPWG on a single issue, it should be a single topic discussion open to At-Large folks who are interested in the special topic, regardless whether they are members or not of the CPWG. I think that the CPWG has great merit, but it should not become the overarching “super-WG” - at the risk of having people not engaging in the specific topical WGs. Maybe I am exaggerating because I am just suffering from teleconference overdose, but my feeling is that it cannot continue like that. Cheers, Roberto On 21.05.2020, at 21:18, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense? Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Jonathan: The thing is that it is expected for all CPWG participants to also participate in these single issue meetings. How are we expected to contribute during the regular CPWG meeting discussions if we do not the issues at hand as well as the folks that want to dive deeper into the subject. -ed On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense?
Jonathan
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz < eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *[CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings.
It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness.
I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary.
-ed
--
*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.
-- *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.
Actually, the way we've been doing them there's no duplication. If you miss the single purpose, it's not discussed again on the CPWG call so it really is up to you. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:36:24 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Jonathan: The thing is that it is expected for all CPWG participants to also participate in these single issue meetings. How are we expected to contribute during the regular CPWG meeting discussions if we do not the issues at hand as well as the folks that want to dive deeper into the subject. -ed On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense? Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. -- 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.
Exactly my point! I am interested in being able to collaborate and provide my input in the regular CPWG meeting discussions therefore I feel compelled to participate in these single issue meetings (which by the way are very enlightening) to do so. Otherwise, why I am participating in the CPWG at all? The problem is not the single issue meeting itself is the additional meetings. -ed On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:49 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Actually, the way we've been doing them there's no duplication. If you miss the single purpose, it's not discussed again on the CPWG call so it really is up to you.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org ------------------------------ *From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:36:24 PM *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Jonathan:
The thing is that it is expected for all CPWG participants to also participate in these single issue meetings. How are we expected to contribute during the regular CPWG meeting discussions if we do not the issues at hand as well as the folks that want to dive deeper into the subject.
-ed
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense?
Jonathan
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz < eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *[CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings.
It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness.
I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary.
-ed
--
*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.
-- *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.
-- *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.
I guess I see all of this as a a symptom of just having too much to do. THAT is the real issue. The alternative is to just have a longer call or more than I e cpwg call which seems like even more. Dunno Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:02:25 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Exactly my point! I am interested in being able to collaborate and provide my input in the regular CPWG meeting discussions therefore I feel compelled to participate in these single issue meetings (which by the way are very enlightening) to do so. Otherwise, why I am participating in the CPWG at all? The problem is not the single issue meeting itself is the additional meetings. -ed On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:49 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Actually, the way we've been doing them there's no duplication. If you miss the single purpose, it's not discussed again on the CPWG call so it really is up to you. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:36:24 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Jonathan: The thing is that it is expected for all CPWG participants to also participate in these single issue meetings. How are we expected to contribute during the regular CPWG meeting discussions if we do not the issues at hand as well as the folks that want to dive deeper into the subject. -ed On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense? Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
I like the idea of not using the term ‘single issue’ CPWG calls. Let’s call them what they are - calls on XXXXX subject. And for those interested in the topic, attendance is nice but not mandatory. Keep the CPWG calls so that people can have an overview of what is going on and then dig deeper into the issue(s) they want to follow. Ed’s right - they are interesting, but they eat into people’s time. Indeed, at some point, we need to ask ourselves how much of people’s volunteer time ICANN can rightly claim, and what can reasonably be expected of any one individual. (particularly when a lot of those calls are not Sydney-Friendly times) Holly
On May 22, 2020, at 7:12 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I guess I see all of this as a a symptom of just having too much to do. THAT is the real issue. The alternative is to just have a longer call or more than I e cpwg call which seems like even more. Dunno
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:02:25 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Exactly my point!
I am interested in being able to collaborate and provide my input in the regular CPWG meeting discussions therefore I feel compelled to participate in these single issue meetings (which by the way are very enlightening) to do so. Otherwise, why I am participating in the CPWG at all?
The problem is not the single issue meeting itself is the additional meetings.
-ed
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:49 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Actually, the way we've been doing them there's no duplication. If you miss the single purpose, it's not discussed again on the CPWG call so it really is up to you.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:36:24 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Jonathan:
The thing is that it is expected for all CPWG participants to also participate in these single issue meetings. How are we expected to contribute during the regular CPWG meeting discussions if we do not the issues at hand as well as the folks that want to dive deeper into the subject.
-ed
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense?
Jonathan
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings.
It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness.
I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary.
-ed
--
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.
-- 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.
-- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hello all, interesting discussion. I guess these additional calls are called CPWG calls as they are about policy topics that could be addressed in the CPWG but since they are big topics, they need more time to address than the amount of weekly time we have in the CPWG. You'll notice the vast majority of these additional calls are about the Subsequent Procedures. If you are not interested in the topic of Subsequent Procedures, then by all means, miss the additional calls. If you are interested in the topic of Subsequent Procedures but the call is at an unfriendly time, or you just don't have the time to attend when it is running, then by all means listen, or even fast forward through the recording of the call later. I often fast forward through calls I have missed, fast forwarding through the intro, the blabla, the stuff I already know, and focus on the important stuff, which means I can review an important 90 minute call in 30 minutes, when I have time. So why are there so many calls about Subsequent Procedures? Because the work on Subsequent Procedures will result in a new version of the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLD applications. This monster of a document, current version in https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb is 388 pages in the English version. 388 pages of very dense instructions for applicants, and rules and so on. And of course, the new one is likely to be even longer. And at some point, the new Applicant Guidebook is going to land on our doorstep and our community is going to be asked to comment on it. And we are probably going to be asked to do that in a short amount of time. All we are trying to do in this round, is to educate enough people in our community with each and every one of the topics that are being discussed, whilst at the same time, also help Justine in guiding her for ALAC positions in the Subsequent Procedures working group. So we do not end up shocked about what we find in the new AGB and we don't end up smothered by nearly 400 pages covered with dense ink. Death by AGB. Kindest regards, Olivier On 22/05/2020 00:15, Holly Raiche wrote:
I like the idea of not using the term ‘single issue’ CPWG calls. Let’s call them what they are - calls on XXXXX subject. And for those interested in the topic, attendance is nice but not mandatory. Keep the CPWG calls so that people can have an overview of what is going on and then dig deeper into the issue(s) they want to follow. Ed’s right - they are interesting, but they eat into people’s time.
Indeed, at some point, we need to ask ourselves how much of people’s volunteer time ICANN can rightly claim, and what can reasonably be expected of any one individual. (particularly when a lot of those calls are not Sydney-Friendly times)
Holly
On May 22, 2020, at 7:12 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
I guess I see all of this as a a symptom of just having too much to do. THAT is the real issue. The alternative is to just have a longer call or more than I e cpwg call which seems like even more. Dunno
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:02:25 PM *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Exactly my point!
I am interested in being able to collaborate and provide my input in the regular CPWG meeting discussions therefore I feel compelled to participate in these single issue meetings (which by the way are very enlightening) to do so. Otherwise, why I am participating in the CPWG at all?
The problem is not the single issue meeting itself is the additional meetings.
-ed
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:49 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Actually, the way we've been doing them there's no duplication. If you miss the single purpose, it's not discussed again on the CPWG call so it really is up to you.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:36:24 PM *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Jonathan:
The thing is that it is expected for all CPWG participants to also participate in these single issue meetings. How are we expected to contribute during the regular CPWG meeting discussions if we do not the issues at hand as well as the folks that want to dive deeper into the subject.
-ed
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Thanks Eduardo. I guess I see the single purpose meetings as a kind of ad hoc subcommittee of only folks that want to dive deeper into that subject. We need to “keep the lights on,” so to speak, on the CPWG calls and make sure we’re covering all that needs discussing on a particular week so we can’t really just convert them to single purpose as we might start letting things fall between the cracks. Does that make sense?
Jonathan
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings.
It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness.
I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary.
-ed
--
*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.
-- *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.
-- *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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Much as I usually loathe solving human problems with tech solutions, this may be an appropriate time to suggest such a path. I hated Slack(*)... until I was forced to use it regularly in some organizations in which I participate. It acts like a Skype that's fine tuned to organizational use with easy creation of ad hoc subgroups and the ability for participants to come and go at their own pace. Furthermore, real time chat now is great for diverse time zones and handles threads better than email. When properly used, chats can be where the preparatory work is done, leaving calls for decision making and when diversity of feedback is more important than focus. - Evan (*) while I have a Slack account for some orgs, my day job uses an open source Slack workalike called Mattermost. Other options such as Telegram and Microsoft Teams also exist. What I mean is that I'm suggesting more use of an organizational chat system but am not trying to push any one version or vendor.
Ha ha! Welcome to the party. The TTF have been trying to get Slack support for years! I tried for just the CCTRT and failed and ICANN staff actually USE it. Sigh. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:20:59 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Much as I usually loathe solving human problems with tech solutions, this may be an appropriate time to suggest such a path. I hated Slack(*)... until I was forced to use it regularly in some organizations in which I participate. It acts like a Skype that's fine tuned to organizational use with easy creation of ad hoc subgroups and the ability for participants to come and go at their own pace. Furthermore, real time chat now is great for diverse time zones and handles threads better than email. When properly used, chats can be where the preparatory work is done, leaving calls for decision making and when diversity of feedback is more important than focus. - Evan (*) while I have a Slack account for some orgs, my day job uses an open source Slack workalike called Mattermost. Other options such as Telegram and Microsoft Teams also exist. What I mean is that I'm suggesting more use of an organizational chat system but am not trying to push any one version or vendor.
Well, good to know the path is identified. Given the volume of work being done and the genuine need to prevent volunteer exhaustion, can the case be re-made? Or is it a dead end? Not quite fair that ICANN deems it suitable for staff but not the rest of the community. - Evan On May 21, 2020, 8:23 PM -0400, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, wrote:
Ha ha! Welcome to the party. The TTF have been trying to get Slack support for years! I tried for just the CCTRT and failed and ICANN staff actually USE it. Sigh.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:20:59 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Much as I usually loathe solving human problems with tech solutions, this may be an appropriate time to suggest such a path.
I hated Slack(*)... until I was forced to use it regularly in some organizations in which I participate. It acts like a Skype that's fine tuned to organizational use with easy creation of ad hoc subgroups and the ability for participants to come and go at their own pace. Furthermore, real time chat now is great for diverse time zones and handles threads better than email. When properly used, chats can be where the preparatory work is done, leaving calls for decision making and when diversity of feedback is more important than focus.
- Evan
(*) while I have a Slack account for some orgs, my day job uses an open source Slack workalike called Mattermost. Other options such as Telegram and Microsoft Teams also exist. What I mean is that I'm suggesting more use of an organizational chat system but am not trying to push any one version or vendor.
The work the TTF has put in reviewing and documenting this https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48348446/How%20At-Large%20s... The slack room using the free tier has been setup in 2014(!) and first used during ATLAS II here’s an invite to the icannatlarge.slack.com https://join.slack.com/t/icannatlarge/shared_invite/zt-5r6y60n5-rYNL4Dq15L3e... we can use the free tier (and we could apply for non profit pricing - as I recall you pointed that out at the TTF session at ICANN60 as my last TTF meeting as chair) Shrug, we just need to do - just like we switched from adobe connect to zoom and at large staff to run the invites. The free tier is bette than the Skype chat Dev Anand On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 10:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, good to know the path is identified.
Given the volume of work being done and the genuine need to prevent volunteer exhaustion, can the case be re-made? Or is it a dead end? Not quite fair that ICANN deems it suitable for staff but not the rest of the community.
- Evan On May 21, 2020, 8:23 PM -0400, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, wrote:
Ha ha! Welcome to the party. The TTF have been trying to get Slack support for years! I tried for just the CCTRT and failed and ICANN staff actually USE it. Sigh.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch < evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:20:59 PM *To:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Much as I usually loathe solving human problems with tech solutions, this may be an appropriate time to suggest such a path.
I hated Slack(*)... until I was forced to use it regularly in some organizations in which I participate. It acts like a Skype that's fine tuned to organizational use with easy creation of ad hoc subgroups and the ability for participants to come and go at their own pace. Furthermore, real time chat now is great for diverse time zones and handles threads better than email. When properly used, chats can be where the preparatory work is done, leaving calls for decision making and when diversity of feedback is more important than focus.
- Evan
(*) while I have a Slack account for some orgs, my day job uses an open source Slack workalike called Mattermost. Other options such as Telegram and Microsoft Teams also exist. What I mean is that I'm suggesting more use of an organizational chat system but am not trying to push any one version or vendor.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks for reminding me! The Slack channel has been in existence almost six years! (Created by Dev May 29 '14 and joined by me, Olivier, Ariel(!) and others a few days later. I've rejoined. It's now one of multiple workspaces I'm involved with. It's downright trivial to create channels for each of the individual topics that may interest people, enabling WG members to scan, join and catch up on what interests them. That way I could participate in the #EthosCapitalMustDie channel and leave everyone else in the CPWG alone ;-) Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 08:17, Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society < admin@ttcsweb.org> wrote:
The work the TTF has put in reviewing and documenting this
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48348446/How%20At-Large%20s...
The slack room using the free tier has been setup in 2014(!) and first used during ATLAS II
here’s an invite to the icannatlarge.slack.com
https://join.slack.com/t/icannatlarge/shared_invite/zt-5r6y60n5-rYNL4Dq15L3e...
we can use the free tier (and we could apply for non profit pricing - as I recall you pointed that out at the TTF session at ICANN60 as my last TTF meeting as chair)
Shrug, we just need to do - just like we switched from adobe connect to zoom and at large staff to run the invites. The free tier is bette than the Skype chat
Dev Anand
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 10:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, good to know the path is identified.
Given the volume of work being done and the genuine need to prevent volunteer exhaustion, can the case be re-made? Or is it a dead end? Not quite fair that ICANN deems it suitable for staff but not the rest of the community.
- Evan On May 21, 2020, 8:23 PM -0400, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, wrote:
Ha ha! Welcome to the party. The TTF have been trying to get Slack support for years! I tried for just the CCTRT and failed and ICANN staff actually USE it. Sigh.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch < evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:20:59 PM *To:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Much as I usually loathe solving human problems with tech solutions, this may be an appropriate time to suggest such a path.
I hated Slack(*)... until I was forced to use it regularly in some organizations in which I participate. It acts like a Skype that's fine tuned to organizational use with easy creation of ad hoc subgroups and the ability for participants to come and go at their own pace. Furthermore, real time chat now is great for diverse time zones and handles threads better than email. When properly used, chats can be where the preparatory work is done, leaving calls for decision making and when diversity of feedback is more important than focus.
- Evan
(*) while I have a Slack account for some orgs, my day job uses an open source Slack workalike called Mattermost. Other options such as Telegram and Microsoft Teams also exist. What I mean is that I'm suggesting more use of an organizational chat system but am not trying to push any one version or vendor.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
And THIS thread is a perfect example of why we need such tools! Subject line is “About Single Subject Meetings,” and we’re currently having a discussion about slack. I gave a very short presentation on the TTF call the other day to make the case for tools like SLACK. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho1j1gbm3wabyne/Case4Loomio.mp4?dl=0 Currently, I’m enamored with Loomio. It does everything Slack does and adds consensus building and decision support tools that are only available with Slack using a plug-in. Come join the party. We can even start an EthosMustDie thread for you! Loomio.org/at-large<http://loomio.org/at-large> From: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 22, 2020 at 6:34 AM To: "admin@ttcsweb.org" <admin@ttcsweb.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Thanks for reminding me! The Slack channel has been in existence almost six years! (Created by Dev May 29 '14 and joined by me, Olivier, Ariel(!) and others a few days later. I've rejoined. It's now one of multiple workspaces I'm involved with. It's downright trivial to create channels for each of the individual topics that may interest people, enabling WG members to scan, join and catch up on what interests them. That way I could participate in the #EthosCapitalMustDie channel and leave everyone else in the CPWG alone ;-) Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 08:17, Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society <admin@ttcsweb.org<mailto:admin@ttcsweb.org>> wrote: The work the TTF has put in reviewing and documenting this https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48348446/How%20At-Large%20s... The slack room using the free tier has been setup in 2014(!) and first used during ATLAS II here’s an invite to the icannatlarge.slack.com<http://icannatlarge.slack.com> https://join.slack.com/t/icannatlarge/shared_invite/zt-5r6y60n5-rYNL4Dq15L3e... we can use the free tier (and we could apply for non profit pricing - as I recall you pointed that out at the TTF session at ICANN60 as my last TTF meeting as chair) Shrug, we just need to do - just like we switched from adobe connect to zoom and at large staff to run the invites. The free tier is bette than the Skype chat Dev Anand On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 10:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> wrote: Well, good to know the path is identified. Given the volume of work being done and the genuine need to prevent volunteer exhaustion, can the case be re-made? Or is it a dead end? Not quite fair that ICANN deems it suitable for staff but not the rest of the community. - Evan On May 21, 2020, 8:23 PM -0400, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>>, wrote: Ha ha! Welcome to the party. The TTF have been trying to get Slack support for years! I tried for just the CCTRT and failed and ICANN staff actually USE it. Sigh. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:20:59 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings Much as I usually loathe solving human problems with tech solutions, this may be an appropriate time to suggest such a path. I hated Slack(*)... until I was forced to use it regularly in some organizations in which I participate. It acts like a Skype that's fine tuned to organizational use with easy creation of ad hoc subgroups and the ability for participants to come and go at their own pace. Furthermore, real time chat now is great for diverse time zones and handles threads better than email. When properly used, chats can be where the preparatory work is done, leaving calls for decision making and when diversity of feedback is more important than focus. - Evan (*) while I have a Slack account for some orgs, my day job uses an open source Slack workalike called Mattermost. Other options such as Telegram and Microsoft Teams also exist. What I mean is that I'm suggesting more use of an organizational chat system but am not trying to push any one version or vendor. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Everyone should at least give it a go! M On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
And THIS thread is a perfect example of why we need such tools! Subject line is “About Single Subject Meetings,” and we’re currently having a discussion about slack. I gave a very short presentation on the TTF call the other day to make the case for tools like SLACK.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho1j1gbm3wabyne/Case4Loomio.mp4?dl=0
Currently, I’m enamored with Loomio. It does everything Slack does and adds consensus building and decision support tools that are only available with Slack using a plug-in. Come join the party. We can even start an EthosMustDie thread for you!
Loomio.org/at-large <http://loomio.org/at-large>
*From: *Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, May 22, 2020 at 6:34 AM *To: *"admin@ttcsweb.org" <admin@ttcsweb.org> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Thanks for reminding me!
The Slack channel has been in existence almost six years! (Created by Dev May 29 '14 and joined by me, Olivier, Ariel(!) and others a few days later.
I've rejoined. It's now one of multiple workspaces I'm involved with.
It's downright trivial to create channels for each of the individual topics that may interest people, enabling WG members to scan, join and catch up on what interests them. That way I could participate in the #EthosCapitalMustDie channel and leave everyone else in the CPWG alone ;-)
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 08:17, Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society < admin@ttcsweb.org> wrote:
The work the TTF has put in reviewing and documenting this
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48348446/How%20At-Large%20s...
The slack room using the free tier has been setup in 2014(!) and first used during ATLAS II
here’s an invite to the icannatlarge.slack.com
https://join.slack.com/t/icannatlarge/shared_invite/zt-5r6y60n5-rYNL4Dq15L3e...
we can use the free tier (and we could apply for non profit pricing - as I recall you pointed that out at the TTF session at ICANN60 as my last TTF meeting as chair)
Shrug, we just need to do - just like we switched from adobe connect to zoom and at large staff to run the invites. The free tier is bette than the Skype chat
Dev Anand
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 10:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, good to know the path is identified.
Given the volume of work being done and the genuine need to prevent volunteer exhaustion, can the case be re-made? Or is it a dead end? Not quite fair that ICANN deems it suitable for staff but not the rest of the community.
- Evan
On May 21, 2020, 8:23 PM -0400, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, wrote:
Ha ha! Welcome to the party. The TTF have been trying to get Slack support for years! I tried for just the CCTRT and failed and ICANN staff actually USE it. Sigh.
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.InnovatorsNetwork.org
------------------------------
*From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch < evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:20:59 PM *To:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
Much as I usually loathe solving human problems with tech solutions, this may be an appropriate time to suggest such a path.
I hated Slack(*)... until I was forced to use it regularly in some organizations in which I participate. It acts like a Skype that's fine tuned to organizational use with easy creation of ad hoc subgroups and the ability for participants to come and go at their own pace. Furthermore, real time chat now is great for diverse time zones and handles threads better than email. When properly used, chats can be where the preparatory work is done, leaving calls for decision making and when diversity of feedback is more important than focus.
- Evan
(*) while I have a Slack account for some orgs, my day job uses an open source Slack workalike called Mattermost. Other options such as Telegram and Microsoft Teams also exist. What I mean is that I'm suggesting more use of an organizational chat system but am not trying to push any one version or vendor.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I think that we need to do a serious effort to prioritise things. The second observation is that I thought that the CPWG was the place where the discussions in the different Was were reported to a wider audience, while my impression is that we are having a second round of discussions on things that have been already discussed in the working groups. These discussions are then reported to the ALAC and to the RALOs, in some cases, like EURALO, preceded by the same report presented to the RALO’s Board, with the result that people that actively participate to calls hear the same points - although with a different level of detail - at least four times. Considering that not everybody is interested in all topics - this is the main reason why we have WGs where people go according to their interests - I am under the impression that we need to review the way CPWG is operating. Cheers, Roberto
On 21.05.2020, at 21:16, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings.
It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness.
I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary.
-ed
-- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Well, I’m always happy to revisit how we’re operating the CPWG but I’m not sure I understand your comment Roberto. We’ve made a separation with the OFBWG so there are now two workgroups. The CPWG is where DNS policy is addressed. It’s true that we summarize some of the discussions on the ALAC and AltPLUS and Eduardo asks me to report into NARALO but I don’t think there are duplicate discussions with the CPWG unless I’m missing some calls. Help me out. The CPWG should be where we are developing our positions on various policy issues, ideally managing participation in ICANN WGs (with reporting and feedback) and managing the drafting of public comments to WGs and advice to the board. From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 PM To: "Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail. com>" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I think that we need to do a serious effort to prioritise things. The second observation is that I thought that the CPWG was the place where the discussions in the different Was were reported to a wider audience, while my impression is that we are having a second round of discussions on things that have been already discussed in the working groups. These discussions are then reported to the ALAC and to the RALOs, in some cases, like EURALO, preceded by the same report presented to the RALO’s Board, with the result that people that actively participate to calls hear the same points - although with a different level of detail - at least four times. Considering that not everybody is interested in all topics - this is the main reason why we have WGs where people go according to their interests - I am under the impression that we need to review the way CPWG is operating. Cheers, Roberto On 21.05.2020, at 21:16, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> wrote: I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Good afternoon: In the light of all that has recently been said about this, I could envisage a solution along the following lines, at least for the next twelve months when the AGB issues will be by-far the most important for the ICANN community: 1. CPWG should continue to meet in a plenary conference call once a month. Between-whiles, the ALAC should function as an Executive Committee managing other current business, including the occasional votes and reporting back to the RALOs, monthly. 2. All weekly calls should be Single-Issue calls. There is a degree of urgency here regarding the AGB, because At Large is currently rather late in the game, playing catch-up. 3. After an extended trial period, At Large would review the experience and decide how to move forward. Bearing in mind that the current accumulation of weekly CPWGs plus multiple Single Issue calls is - I think - not sustainable for most of our membership. Regards Christopher Wilkinson
El 21 de mayo de 2020 a las 21:32 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió:
Well, I’m always happy to revisit how we’re operating the CPWG but I’m not sure I understand your comment Roberto. We’ve made a separation with the OFBWG so there are now two workgroups. The CPWG is where DNS policy is addressed. It’s true that we summarize some of the discussions on the ALAC and AltPLUS and Eduardo asks me to report into NARALO but I don’t think there are duplicate discussions with the CPWG unless I’m missing some calls. Help me out. The CPWG should be where we are developing our positions on various policy issues, ideally managing participation in ICANN WGs (with reporting and feedback) and managing the drafting of public comments to WGs and advice to the board.
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 PM To: "Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail. com>" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
I think that we need to do a serious effort to prioritise things.
The second observation is that I thought that the CPWG was the place where the discussions in the different Was were reported to a wider audience, while my impression is that we are having a second round of discussions on things that have been already discussed in the working groups. These discussions are then reported to the ALAC and to the RALOs, in some cases, like EURALO, preceded by the same report presented to the RALO’s Board, with the result that people that actively participate to calls hear the same points - although with a different level of detail - at least four times.
Considering that not everybody is interested in all topics - this is the main reason why we have WGs where people go according to their interests - I am under the impression that we need to review the way CPWG is operating.
Cheers,
Roberto
> >
On 21.05.2020, at 21:16, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com > wrote:
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings.
It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness.
I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary.
-ed
--
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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I appreciate the attempts to find a workable solution that balances the need for ALAC to develop policy positions that are the result of reasoned discussion as against the time people have available. I have to disagree with Christopher in that I don’t think that is possible with a CPWG call only one a month. ALAC needs to stay across what is happening generally, and for those people who are particularly interested in one or two issues, take the deep dives of a single issue call but just on that issue. The feat is that, if the CPWG meets as as a group only once a month, we will lose an overview of the policy debates going on. Just my two cents worth Holly
On May 24, 2020, at 2:55 AM, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good afternoon:
In the light of all that has recently been said about this, I could envisage a solution along the following lines, at least for the next twelve months when the AGB issues will be by-far the most important for the ICANN community:
1. CPWG should continue to meet in a plenary conference call once a month. Between-whiles, the ALAC should function as an Executive Committee managing other current business, including the occasional votes and reporting back to the RALOs, monthly.
2. All weekly calls should be Single-Issue calls. There is a degree of urgency here regarding the AGB, because At Large is currently rather late in the game, playing catch-up.
3. After an extended trial period, At Large would review the experience and decide how to move forward. Bearing in mind that the current accumulation of weekly CPWGs plus multiple Single Issue calls is - I think - not sustainable for most of our membership.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
El 21 de mayo de 2020 a las 21:32 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió:
Well, I’m always happy to revisit how we’re operating the CPWG but I’m not sure I understand your comment Roberto. We’ve made a separation with the OFBWG so there are now two workgroups. The CPWG is where DNS policy is addressed. It’s true that we summarize some of the discussions on the ALAC and AltPLUS and Eduardo asks me to report into NARALO but I don’t think there are duplicate discussions with the CPWG unless I’m missing some calls. Help me out. The CPWG should be where we are developing our positions on various policy issues, ideally managing participation in ICANN WGs (with reporting and feedback) and managing the drafting of public comments to WGs and advice to the board.
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 PM To: "Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail. com>" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings
I think that we need to do a serious effort to prioritise things.
The second observation is that I thought that the CPWG was the place where the discussions in the different Was were reported to a wider audience, while my impression is that we are having a second round of discussions on things that have been already discussed in the working groups. These discussions are then reported to the ALAC and to the RALOs, in some cases, like EURALO, preceded by the same report presented to the RALO’s Board, with the result that people that actively participate to calls hear the same points - although with a different level of detail - at least four times.
Considering that not everybody is interested in all topics - this is the main reason why we have WGs where people go according to their interests - I am under the impression that we need to review the way CPWG is operating.
Cheers,
Roberto
On 21.05.2020, at 21:16, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings.
It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness.
I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary.
-ed
--
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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
+1 Holly!!! Obtener Outlook para iOS On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:01 PM -0300, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: I appreciate the attempts to find a workable solution that balances the need for ALAC to develop policy positions that are the result of reasoned discussion as against the time people have available. I have to disagree with Christopher in that I don’t think that is possible with a CPWG call only one a month. ALAC needs to stay across what is happening generally, and for those people who are particularly interested in one or two issues, take the deep dives of a single issue call but just on that issue. The feat is that, if the CPWG meets as as a group only once a month, we will lose an overview of the policy debates going on. Just my two cents worth Holly On May 24, 2020, at 2:55 AM, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Good afternoon: In the light of all that has recently been said about this, I could envisage a solution along the following lines, at least for the next twelve months when the AGB issues will be by-far the most important for the ICANN community: 1. CPWG should continue to meet in a plenary conference call once a month. Between-whiles, the ALAC should function as an Executive Committee managing other current business, including the occasional votes and reporting back to the RALOs, monthly. 2. All weekly calls should be Single-Issue calls. There is a degree of urgency here regarding the AGB, because At Large is currently rather late in the game, playing catch-up. 3. After an extended trial period, At Large would review the experience and decide how to move forward. Bearing in mind that the current accumulation of weekly CPWGs plus multiple Single Issue calls is - I think - not sustainable for most of our membership. Regards Christopher Wilkinson El 21 de mayo de 2020 a las 21:32 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió: Well, I’m always happy to revisit how we’re operating the CPWG but I’m not sure I understand your comment Roberto. We’ve made a separation with the OFBWG so there are now two workgroups. The CPWG is where DNS policy is addressed. It’s true that we summarize some of the discussions on the ALAC and AltPLUS and Eduardo asks me to report into NARALO but I don’t think there are duplicate discussions with the CPWG unless I’m missing some calls. Help me out. The CPWG should be where we are developing our positions on various policy issues, ideally managing participation in ICANN WGs (with reporting and feedback) and managing the drafting of public comments to WGs and advice to the board. From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 PM To: "Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail. com>" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I think that we need to do a serious effort to prioritise things. The second observation is that I thought that the CPWG was the place where the discussions in the different Was were reported to a wider audience, while my impression is that we are having a second round of discussions on things that have been already discussed in the working groups. These discussions are then reported to the ALAC and to the RALOs, in some cases, like EURALO, preceded by the same report presented to the RALO’s Board, with the result that people that actively participate to calls hear the same points - although with a different level of detail - at least four times. Considering that not everybody is interested in all topics - this is the main reason why we have WGs where people go according to their interests - I am under the impression that we need to review the way CPWG is operating. Cheers, Roberto On 21.05.2020, at 21:16, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Agree with Holly. We’re filling our time, as it is. I’ll continue to work on making the meetings more “efficient,” but there are going to be times when we just have too much to do in an hour a week. From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alberto soto <alberto@soto.net.ar> Date: Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 7:36 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>, "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings +1 Holly!!! Obtener Outlook para iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:01 PM -0300, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: I appreciate the attempts to find a workable solution that balances the need for ALAC to develop policy positions that are the result of reasoned discussion as against the time people have available. I have to disagree with Christopher in that I don’t think that is possible with a CPWG call only one a month. ALAC needs to stay across what is happening generally, and for those people who are particularly interested in one or two issues, take the deep dives of a single issue call but just on that issue. The feat is that, if the CPWG meets as as a group only once a month, we will lose an overview of the policy debates going on. Just my two cents worth Holly On May 24, 2020, at 2:55 AM, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good afternoon: In the light of all that has recently been said about this, I could envisage a solution along the following lines, at least for the next twelve months when the AGB issues will be by-far the most important for the ICANN community: 1. CPWG should continue to meet in a plenary conference call once a month. Between-whiles, the ALAC should function as an Executive Committee managing other current business, including the occasional votes and reporting back to the RALOs, monthly. 2. All weekly calls should be Single-Issue calls. There is a degree of urgency here regarding the AGB, because At Large is currently rather late in the game, playing catch-up. 3. After an extended trial period, At Large would review the experience and decide how to move forward. Bearing in mind that the current accumulation of weekly CPWGs plus multiple Single Issue calls is - I think - not sustainable for most of our membership. Regards Christopher Wilkinson El 21 de mayo de 2020 a las 21:32 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> escribió: Well, I’m always happy to revisit how we’re operating the CPWG but I’m not sure I understand your comment Roberto. We’ve made a separation with the OFBWG so there are now two workgroups. The CPWG is where DNS policy is addressed. It’s true that we summarize some of the discussions on the ALAC and AltPLUS and Eduardo asks me to report into NARALO but I don’t think there are duplicate discussions with the CPWG unless I’m missing some calls. Help me out. The CPWG should be where we are developing our positions on various policy issues, ideally managing participation in ICANN WGs (with reporting and feedback) and managing the drafting of public comments to WGs and advice to the board. From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com<mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:27 PM To: "Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail. com>" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I think that we need to do a serious effort to prioritise things. The second observation is that I thought that the CPWG was the place where the discussions in the different Was were reported to a wider audience, while my impression is that we are having a second round of discussions on things that have been already discussed in the working groups. These discussions are then reported to the ALAC and to the RALOs, in some cases, like EURALO, preceded by the same report presented to the RALO’s Board, with the result that people that actively participate to calls hear the same points - although with a different level of detail - at least four times. Considering that not everybody is interested in all topics - this is the main reason why we have WGs where people go according to their interests - I am under the impression that we need to review the way CPWG is operating. Cheers, Roberto On 21.05.2020, at 21:16, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> wrote: I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I'm not in much of a position to comment because my attendance record on calls is not good. They tend to happen when I'm doing day-job things, and I much prefer to participate through written media where I can participate on my own time, and take the time to put out (what I hope appear as) cogent thoughts may actually take some time to develop and express. The environment of a real-time call is not conductive to that. Frankly, Jonathan, I'm not sure there are too many more efficiencies to be extracted from calls in their corrent form. Christopher's proposal IMO is reasonable but not possible the way things are being done now. They *would* be possible if a monthly CPWG call -- held a few days before each ALAC meeting -- was limited to decision-making through consensus assessment on what would be the WG's position(s) to take to ALAC. In advance of each call the discussion would take place on Slack/ Loomio/ whatever using channels for each topic where the possible options are developed.. That there's too much for a single monthly call is not the result of inefficiency. It's the product of chasing too many things. As long as I've been involved in these processes I've been dismayed at the perceived need to comment on so many GNSO and other comment solicitations that really ought to be either too detailed or not relevant enough for our consideration. When forcing ourselves to look at every issue thrust at us through the lens of the *non-registrant end user* (registrants already have their voice elsewhere in ICANN), the landscape of relevant issues shrinks dramatically. Why should we care about: - Who administers auction proceeds: we may have something high-level to say about how proceeds should be spent, but does the end users really give a damn who runs it? - Further gTLD rounds: Rather than actually take a position on whether having more rounds is actually better for end-users at at a high-level, we get way too deep into legalese of the Applicant Guidebook. We should be limiting ourselves to issues that affect end users such as stability, abuse and confusion and leave the industry fight over the rest of it. - Community evaluation and applicant support. I once was very heavily involved in both, but on reflection see that these are very much issues for would-be registries and not end-users. Our interest is indirect at best. The applicants are wannabe registry operators who ultimately want to sell domains. It's of marginal interest to end users whether specialized TLDs exist or not because we're not buying domains, just linking to them. The public already knows that domains don't always exact-mactch to the names of the registrants so why are we chasing issues of interest to registries? Sure, there's are those among us to whom industry issues such as community TLDs are a big deal. But they're a big deal to registries and registrants and maybe registrars, not end users. There are other ICANN constituencies that exist to advance positions from the PoV of registrants, both commercial and noncommercial, advocates are welcome to use those paths. My main point is that if we're overloaded because we're chasing too many issues, they fault is one of judgment not efficiency. There should be a very severe triage going on for every public comment, event demand of our time that comes by. We spend too much time running after public comment periods rather than choosing for ourselves what issues matter and being proactive. This problem has existed for a long time, the solution has always been in plain sight. Be more detailed and thoughtful about fewer things, and stick to issues that directly impact end users. Every single issue that comes our way should be answered with "I'm an end user who doesn't buy domains. How does this impact me?" Heidi, ICANN does ALAC a massive disservice -- indeed it prevents out execution of our mandate -- by measuring success based on volume of statements. Whether or not that's the case now, it certainly was in the past. In this respect ALAC needs to be a little more GAC-like by choosing fewer things to talk about but having more and weightier things to say about those that we choose to address. We will ALWAYS be overloaded beyond capacity until this is done, and using new tech tools will not solve THAT problem. - Evan
I actually agree completely. What I’m been pushing since I joined the CPWG is a “unique end user perspective.” Because obviously you can make the case that EVERYTHING, at least indirectly, impacts end users but I’ve always thought it best to think of our inputs as amicus briefs whereby we are offering a perspective that would otherwise not be in play. From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 5:29 AM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I'm not in much of a position to comment because my attendance record on calls is not good. They tend to happen when I'm doing day-job things, and I much prefer to participate through written media where I can participate on my own time, and take the time to put out (what I hope appear as) cogent thoughts may actually take some time to develop and express. The environment of a real-time call is not conductive to that. Frankly, Jonathan, I'm not sure there are too many more efficiencies to be extracted from calls in their corrent form. Christopher's proposal IMO is reasonable but not possible the way things are being done now. They *would* be possible if a monthly CPWG call -- held a few days before each ALAC meeting -- was limited to decision-making through consensus assessment on what would be the WG's position(s) to take to ALAC. In advance of each call the discussion would take place on Slack/ Loomio/ whatever using channels for each topic where the possible options are developed.. That there's too much for a single monthly call is not the result of inefficiency. It's the product of chasing too many things. As long as I've been involved in these processes I've been dismayed at the perceived need to comment on so many GNSO and other comment solicitations that really ought to be either too detailed or not relevant enough for our consideration. When forcing ourselves to look at every issue thrust at us through the lens of the non-registrant end user (registrants already have their voice elsewhere in ICANN), the landscape of relevant issues shrinks dramatically. Why should we care about: * Who administers auction proceeds: we may have something high-level to say about how proceeds should be spent, but does the end users really give a damn who runs it? * Further gTLD rounds: Rather than actually take a position on whether having more rounds is actually better for end-users at at a high-level, we get way too deep into legalese of the Applicant Guidebook. We should be limiting ourselves to issues that affect end users such as stability, abuse and confusion and leave the industry fight over the rest of it. * Community evaluation and applicant support. I once was very heavily involved in both, but on reflection see that these are very much issues for would-be registries and not end-users. Our interest is indirect at best. The applicants are wannabe registry operators who ultimately want to sell domains. It's of marginal interest to end users whether specialized TLDs exist or not because we're not buying domains, just linking to them. The public already knows that domains don't always exact-mactch to the names of the registrants so why are we chasing issues of interest to registries? Sure, there's are those among us to whom industry issues such as community TLDs are a big deal. But they're a big deal to registries and registrants and maybe registrars, not end users. There are other ICANN constituencies that exist to advance positions from the PoV of registrants, both commercial and noncommercial, advocates are welcome to use those paths. My main point is that if we're overloaded because we're chasing too many issues, they fault is one of judgment not efficiency. There should be a very severe triage going on for every public comment, event demand of our time that comes by. We spend too much time running after public comment periods rather than choosing for ourselves what issues matter and being proactive. This problem has existed for a long time, the solution has always been in plain sight. Be more detailed and thoughtful about fewer things, and stick to issues that directly impact end users. Every single issue that comes our way should be answered with "I'm an end user who doesn't buy domains. How does this impact me?" Heidi, ICANN does ALAC a massive disservice -- indeed it prevents out execution of our mandate -- by measuring success based on volume of statements. Whether or not that's the case now, it certainly was in the past. In this respect ALAC needs to be a little more GAC-like by choosing fewer things to talk about but having more and weightier things to say about those that we choose to address. We will ALWAYS be overloaded beyond capacity until this is done, and using new tech tools will not solve THAT problem. - Evan
I don’t know if the final straw was the geonames poll call. This is a very special call which is meant to facilitate more people taking the poll. The idea is to take the poll WHILE ON THE CALL and be able to benefit from interpretation and ask me questions if they are confused about a question. The reason, I’m hoping RALO leads will participate ON THE DOODLE POLL is simply to get as many of their interested members to be on this special call. It’s not important that you be on the call, just get people to be on it. Hope that helps. Jonathan From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:16 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] About Single Subject Meetings I have noticed that, more and more, we are having CPWG single subject meetings in addition to the weekly CPWG meetings. It is my strong impression that this is causing "meeting fatigue". As a result, we may start to see a drop in participation and hence its effectiveness. I recommend that instead of having additional meetings, use the CPWG weekly meetings and convert them into CPWG single issue meetings when necessary. -ed -- 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.
participants (14)
-
Alberto soto -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
Jonathan Zuck -
Judith Hellerstein -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Matthias M. Hudobnik -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Roberto Gaetano -
Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society