Thanks Mary. My note to you about the "no computers/phones" was off list, so I'll do an abbreviated one here for the list. All, my daughter who is a Type 1 diabetic will be traveling with me to this meeting. In the event of a blood glucose low (or prolonged high) she will need to be able to reach me by any means necessary including email, text, call, etc. I would like to participate in this meeting, if possible. However, if there is a rule preventing my daughter from reaching me, I'm afraid I will have to decline this time. I'd appreciate a final decision being made on this as quickly as possible so that any adjustments to air travel and hotel reservations can be made sooner rather than later. Thanks! Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:09 PM To: PPSAI WG Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Brief Explanation of Proposed Group Agreements for LA F2F session Dear WG members, Thanks to everyone who has already sent in their votes for their "top two" topics that they believe should be prioritized for discussion at the face to face facilitated session in LA on 10 October. For those who have not yet done so, please let me know your topic selections as soon as you can. I thought it might also be helpful to provide a brief explanation of the proposed "group agreement" principles we sent around. First of all, please do not interpret these as final - they are all subject to discussion as the idea is for them (or any others that are ultimately adopted) to be the product of group agreement, so as to facilitate greater collaboration, focus and likelihood of success. This may be something that we can take up further during the WG meeting tomorrow, for instance (for which we will be sending out a draft agenda shortly as well). Essentially, any and all "group agreements" are the product of consensus and agreed on prior to any substantive work or discussions. Secondly, on the specific suggestion of "no laptops or phones", this was included on the list of proposals because our experience with this type of facilitated face to face sessions - including at a senior executive staff training session and at the first ICANN Academy event - has shown that this is one of the best "ground rules" for ensuring that everyone is focused and present, and fully contributing to the discussion. As I noted above, this - like all the others - is a proposal subject to group discussion and agreement, and the group can therefore agree to (a) use the rule as proposed; (b) reject the rule entirely; (c) use the rule with exceptions; or (d) something else. Should (c) be the group's choice, then part of that agreement might include agreed exceptions such as the ones Don, Kiran and Paul have listed. We also note the point made by Kristina and Kiran about communicating privately, whether with others in the room or who are participating remotely. Our thought on this was that one major objective of a face to face session is to have everyone contribute to the group conversation - to that end, while a session may (subject to physical facilities and other limitations) break out into small groups and such, the preferred dynamic when the group is together (as we anticipate this WG mostly to be in LA) is for everyone to speak publicly unless a request is made for a more private caucus. We have planned to have a staff member keep an eye on questions and comments from remote participants for that reason. I hope this clarifies the document in question and look forward to the group's discussion on these proposed principles. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.

Hi Guys, Although I see the point ICANN are making, more focused blah blah - there is one thing that has been missed, and if I was attending ICANN 51 (cant on this one) I would heavilty criticise them on, and thats disability, I am very very partially sighted, by laptop is inverted and my tablet is too, the text size is near an inch high on the tablet because of its screen, so I cant really see the whiteboard. Certainly at ICANN 50, I tried to sit at the front of the WG's I went too, and honestly I still could not see them properly, so from a disability pov, certainly laptops/tablets etc should be allowed and I used mine to go into remote participation so I could zoom in on the text being discussed. Kind regards, Chris On 29/09/2014 11:08 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

Dear WG members,

Thanks to everyone who has already sent in their votes for their “top two” topics that they believe should be prioritized for discussion at the face to face facilitated session in LA on 10 October. For those who have not yet done so, please let me know your topic selections as soon as you can.

I thought it might also be helpful to provide a brief explanation of the proposed “group agreement” principles we sent around. First of all, please do not interpret these as final – they are all subject to discussion as the idea is for them (or any others that are ultimately adopted) to be the product of group agreement, so as to facilitate greater collaboration, focus and likelihood of success. This may be something that we can take up further during the WG meeting tomorrow, for instance (for which we will be sending out a draft agenda shortly as well). Essentially, any and all “group agreements” are the product of consensus and agreed on prior to any substantive work or discussions.

Secondly, on the specific suggestion of “no laptops or phones”, this was included on the list of proposals because our experience with this type of facilitated face to face sessions – including at a senior executive staff training session and at the first ICANN Academy event – has shown that this is one of the best “ground rules” for ensuring that everyone is focused and present, and fully contributing to the discussion. As I noted above, this – like all the others – is a proposal subject to group discussion and agreement, and the group can therefore agree to (a) use the rule as proposed; (b) reject the rule entirely; (c) use the rule with exceptions; or (d) something else. Should (c) be the group’s choice, then part of that agreement might include agreed exceptions such as the ones Don, Kiran and Paul have listed.

We also note the point made by Kristina and Kiran about communicating privately, whether with others in the room or who are participating remotely. Our thought on this was that one major objective of a face to face session is to have everyone contribute to the group conversation – to that end, while a session may (subject to physical facilities and other limitations) break out into small groups and such, the preferred dynamic when the group is together (as we anticipate this WG mostly to be in LA) is for everyone to speak publicly unless a request is made for a more private caucus. We have planned to have a staff member keep an eye on questions and comments from remote participants for that reason.

I hope this clarifies the document in question and look forward to the group’s discussion on these proposed principles.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org

_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg