Thanks Amr .. Sounds great .. Just to remind ourselves that we should have now a seven aspects to consider, after agreeing to move 'GAC & GNSO secretariats coordination' from PDP to day-to-day .. --Manal Sent from my iPhone On Mar 4, 2014, at 3:08 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
This email thread is awesome, and thanks to all the great thoughts being put forward. I see a great deal of wisdom in not getting into too much detail during our presentation to the community at this point, especially in areas of our work where things are not finalised. My feeling is that we need to ask ourselves: what kind of feedback do we feel will be constructive to this initiative at this point in time?
My thoughts on this are geared more towards the day-to-day activities being developed. We have six topics listed to which we have already begun to hash out details using seven questions for each one of them. Right now, it might not do any good to get into the details of any of the answers we’re trying to figure out, but what I feel might be a good idea is to gauge attendees on thoughts regarding potential topics we might have missed or additional questions we should be posing to the six topics that might be helpful to answer.
To that end, I feel it might be worthwhile to present the six topics (with a brief description of what each one of them is meant to be), followed by a presentation of the seven questions boxes arranged in columns in the tables circulated. The feedback we should request is not what folks think about these topics, but rather are there any we have missed that we need to consider moving forward at this point, as well as are there any angles to each of these topics that we haven’t addressed (in broad strokes such as adding an eighth question to each of the topics) and that we need to be paying attention to.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Thanks Jonathan ..
I take your below points, in addition to the time constraint .. so, if I've interpreted the below discussion right, the question now is, where should our work presentation stop:
- For the day-to-day work track, do we have time to work out the pros and cons of each option, or present the current version as is mentioning our intention to do so and to share an updated version online ..
- For the PDP work track, I take it that we will be presenting the current version as is and maybe also mentioning our intention to share later, online, a list of issues/questions (whether answered or not remains to be seen)..
I just have one more question, how do we intend to utilize the time of our consultation group face-to-face meeting .. in wrapping and agreeing on the way forward or also getting into substance (for example, looking at the pros & cons if not yet completed or going through the list of issues/questions,...)?
Kind regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:15 AM To: Manal Ismail; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Suzanne Radell' Cc: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Work Plan for and at Singapore ..
Manal and colleagues,
No need to apologise for the long email. In my view, you are doing great job of keeping us focussed on the issues a hand and how to make forward progress.
Regarding our joint meeting in Singapore, I have a couple of additional points for consideration:
1. We should possibly not assume that members of either the GAC or the GNSO are familiar with the background and progress to date and therefore some of our session may need to be educational. 2. Even if some are well prepared, going into the detail of the questions may be counter-productive in such a large forum.
So, whilst I am strongly in favour of explaining our work and seeking input and feedback, I think we need to handle it with some care as it is a very sizeable group in a somewhat formal setting
Thanks.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] Sent: 04 March 2014 07:28 To: Jonathan Robinson; Mike O'Connor; Suzanne Radell Cc: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gac-gnso-cg] Work Plan for and at Singapore ..
Thank you all for your valuable responses ..
@Ana, Although I see the merit behind your suggestion for grasping the opportunity and holding 2 meetings in Singapore, yet practically speaking I believe this may be difficult to schedule .. but I'm flexible if all agree and schedule allows .. I also see your point in, if having one meeting, holding it after our GAC-GNSO joint meeting and personally do not have a problem ..
@Suzanne, You did not miss much as the conference call was cancelled, and instead I thought we might continue our discussion through 4 messages each on one of the proposed agenda items .. On your first question, there's already an unsettled discussion on the list whether we should get into the long list of questions or not given the limited time we have .. and frankly I sympathize both views the practical reasons for suggesting not to as well as the importance of the questions which are basically a main aspect of our work .. Having said that I was going to suggest that maybe we can consolidate those questions and come up with a smaller set, like 5 or 6 main points, to discuss for and at Singapore .. Not sure what others think .. On your second point, my initial thinking of our joint meeting was partially reporting back and partially interactive discussion .. I was thinking that first we can bring again to the attention of GAC-GNSO attendees accomplished tasks, namely the Charter & the request for funding, both of which, by the way, were already shared online; then focus the rest of the meeting on having an interactive discussion on the work of both work tracks .. and here I was thinking that GAC-GNSO should now where we stand, how we have reached that point as well as where we're heading .. I think it's a good opportunity to explain our work then seek feedback whether at the meeting or later online in response to sharing our work documents, hopefully within an agreed timeframe .. Not sure if this makes sense but we can discuss during our call today ..
@Mikey, I'm a bit unclear as to whether you are concerned 'about the level of detail' or the number of questions? In any case I fully agree with you that we should have this discussed and agreed on today's call ..
@Jonathan, On the formal confirmation from the GAC chair regarding the community funding application (for "reverse liaison"), I recall that Olof had already shared with Heather .. (Olof, would you be able to kindly follow-up with Heather on this?) As to the 4 objectives you mentioned for Singapore meeting, I fully agree to all 4 .. I was just thinking that points 1-3 should not take long and that point 4 should be the focus of our meeting, keeping it as interactive as possible by walking through our working documents, highlighting points agreed by the consultation group, points still under discussion as well as points indicated as important but not yet discussed .. and at the end seeking their feedback whether immediate, at the meeting, or later, online .. but I'm flexible if you and the group agree on otherwise ..
Apologies for yet another long email .. Looking forward to further discussing and concluding during today's call ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:58 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Suzanne Radell' Cc: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Work Plan for and at Singapore ..
All,
My sense of the objective for Singapore is:
1. Indicate a productive and co-operative approach 2. Illustrate a charter governing the scope of the work of the group 3. Illustrate two work tracks and an overall systematic method 4. Illustrate progress to date within each of the work tracks
I think that's in line with what Mikey (and possibly others) is (are) suggesting and doesn't lead us into the "trap" of trying to do too much analysis or otherwise and not succeeding.
I think we are succeeding at a time when we are all exceptionally busy and it would be good (for all of us) to convey that effectively.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: 03 March 2014 15:51 To: Suzanne Radell Cc: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Work Plan for and at Singapore ..
hi all,
i think we have a little bit of a puzzler about the level of detail we want to go into when answering that series of questions. i'm inclined towards "less detail" so that we don't accidentally launch a 6-month analysis effort. but even a high level analysis is going to be hard to complete during the 2 calls that remain between now and Singapore.
maybe we could focus our call this week on on that which we already completed and ready for presentation in Singapore? we have quite a lot - charter, ideas, some pictures... then we could tidy up the (short) presentation by our next call?
mikey
On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell@ntia.doc.gov> wrote:
I too want to thank Manal for laying out our agenda not only for tomorrow's call but for Singapore as well. I will apologize in advance for not having had sufficient time to devote to this last week, due to the press of prep work with USG agencies for Singapore. But as I consider Manal's and Ana's email messages, I'm mindful of the need to bring myself up to speed quickly and be better informed as to work load requirements for this project leading into the Singapore meeting.
So my first question is whether we are seeking to draft answers to all of the questions our materials are posing? If so, is it our intention to then present both questions and proposed answers to the GAC and the GNSO?
I'd also like to share a slight hesitation about how much material we intend to present to our colleagues (including the BGRI, presumably?) in Singapore; there's a lot of information and proposed forward action for people to digest. Do we want to develop a timeline or some milestones to ensure that we don't get out too far ahead of our respective communities? In raising these questions, it's not my intention to appear to be questioning the direction or scope of work at all; just taking note of a broad range of activities that the ICANN community is grappling with and wanting to be sure we can manage both progress and expectations while also drawing more of our GAC and GNSO colleagues into the work itself.
Thanks in advance for your guidance, Suz
Suzanne Murray Radell Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH: 202-482-3167 FX: 202-482-1865 ________________________________________ From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ana Neves [Ana.Neves@fct.pt] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:43 AM To: Manal Ismail; gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] Work Plan for and at Singapore ..
Dear Manal,
Thank you so much for your email, which made me to re-think about this important matter and as you rightly say the draft agenda can work as a brainstorming as well.
Just would like to highlight at this stage that maybe it would be useful to have two F2F meetings in Singapore, 1 previous and the other after the GAC-GNSO joint meeting. If the 1st one might not be feasible due to the scheduling, I don't see it as problematic as we are working on that through conf call, yet we should use the opportunity to be all in Singapore to a debrief/f2f meeting after the GAC-GNSO joint meeting - and not to wait to the next conf call post Singapore.
Looking forward to hearing from all of you tomorrow,
Ana
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: terça-feira, 25 de Fevereiro de 2014 17:52 To: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Work Plan for and at Singapore ..
Dear All ..
Apologies to keep bombarding you with more messages, hopefully my last for today .. Although the fourth agenda item was to agree on our deliverables for next call .. I have quickly discussed with Jonathan and we thought it would be better if we extend this discussion to agree on an overall plan for and at Singapore ..
Pre-Singapore we have:
1. 3 weeks remaining
2. 2 conference calls scheduled for Mar. 4th & 18th
At Singapore:
1. We have a GAC-GNSO joint meeting (slot under discussion is Sun. at 15h00 or 15h30 for approximately 1 hour)
2. We believe the group would also benefit from a face-to-face meeting in Singapore, even if for a quick ½ hr
Material:
1. The Charter (done - we can just report it exists and provide reference)
2. The request for funding a GNSO liaison to the GAC (done - we can just report it exists, provide reference and status)
3. Progress of PDP work track (ongoing - to be presented and discussed at the meeting)
4. Progress of day-to-day cooperation work track (ongoing - to be presented and discussed at the meeting)
Given the above, my initial suggestion is to target the following for Singapore:
1. We should have completed an agreed initial version of filled PDP table(s)
2. We should have completed an agreed initial version of filled day-to-day table(s)
3. Highlight questions/issues we particularly need answers for at the meeting
4. Know the status of the request for funding a GNSO liaison to the GAC, just in case
Please consider this as an initial brainstorming .. I have to admit that I did not even have the chance to fully discuss everything with Jonathan .. Looking forward to receiving your feedback ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:07 PM To: gac-gnso-cg@icann.org<mailto:gac-gnso-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] Agenda for Tues. Feb. 25th cc ..
Dear All ..
Please find below the suggested agenda for tomorrow's conference call ..
1. Day-to-day work track
(Working document prepared by Marika and Olof - Version circulated by Marika on Feb. 20th, 2014)
2. PDP work track
(Working document prepared by Mikey and Suzanne - Version circulated by Mikey on Feb. 20th, 2014)
3. Agree on material ready to be shared in preparation for Singapore
o Active GNSO WGs (attached)
o Mechanism for day-to-day co-operation (attached version - with unpopulated table)
4. Agree on expectations from both work tracks for the following call (Note: Next call scheduled for 11 March 2014, 14h00 UTC)
5. AOB
All referenced documents are attached for your convenience ..
Kind Regards --Manal
_______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
_______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
_______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
_______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg