For Members only: poll on a half or full day meeting at ICANN57
Dear Members, As noted during the Working Group call last Wednesday, it may be possible for GNSO PDP Working Groups to conduct either a half-day (4 hours) or full-day face-to-face meeting at ICANN57. These F2F meetings do not replace the “traditional” 60- or 90-minute open meetings that all Working Groups normally conduct at ICANN Public Meetings; rather, the idea of a F2F meeting is to provide a Working Group that is at an appropriate phase in its work with the additional time to focus more intensively on its deliberations, in a closed setting, so as to facilitate consensus building and effective outcomes. Quite a few Members who attended the call last Wednesday agreed that there seems not to be a pressing need for our Working Group to have such a closed, intensive session at ICANN57. However, to allow all Members the chance to weigh in, staff has created the following poll: http://doodle.com/poll/eu2rt7uuw446srp6. We will appreciate it if you can fill out the poll at your earliest convenience, noting that it is intended for Members only and that, if a F2F meeting is to take place, it will likely be on Thursday 3 November and remote participation facilities will be made available to those who are not there in person. However, no travel funding will be provided for this specific purpose. Please note also that not conducting a F2F meeting at this time will not prejudice or affect any future decision by the GNSO Council regarding whether and when we might have such a meeting – perhaps at ICANN58 (March 2017) or ICANN59 (June 2017). Thanks very much. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889
I find the poll options very confusing. Are we asking whether we *want* the F2F? Or are we asking whether we'd participate *if* there's a F2F?
From the choices:
"I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting in person" - Yes/No "I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting remotely" - Yes/No etc. it seems to not capture what appears to be the intent of the poll, namely finding out whether we want a F2F in the first place. My preferences might be "No, I don't want one, but yes, I'll participate if there is one" --- how should I vote?!?!?! A simpler poll might be a single question (instead of 5 questions): 1. Do you want to have a F2F? (a) Yes, full day (b) Yes, half day (c) No. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Members,
As noted during the Working Group call last Wednesday, it may be possible for GNSO PDP Working Groups to conduct either a half-day (4 hours) or full-day face-to-face meeting at ICANN57. These F2F meetings do not replace the “traditional” 60- or 90-minute open meetings that all Working Groups normally conduct at ICANN Public Meetings; rather, the idea of a F2F meeting is to provide a Working Group that is at an appropriate phase in its work with the additional time to focus more intensively on its deliberations, in a closed setting, so as to facilitate consensus building and effective outcomes.
Quite a few Members who attended the call last Wednesday agreed that there seems not to be a pressing need for our Working Group to have such a closed, intensive session at ICANN57. However, to allow all Members the chance to weigh in, staff has created the following poll: http://doodle.com/poll/eu2rt7uuw446srp6.
We will appreciate it if you can fill out the poll at your earliest convenience, noting that it is intended for Members only and that, if a F2F meeting is to take place, it will likely be on Thursday 3 November and remote participation facilities will be made available to those who are not there in person. However, no travel funding will be provided for this specific purpose. Please note also that not conducting a F2F meeting at this time will not prejudice or affect any future decision by the GNSO Council regarding whether and when we might have such a meeting – perhaps at ICANN58 (March 2017) or ICANN59 (June 2017).
Thanks very much.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA 1-202-704-0408 ________________________________ From: George Kirikos<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: 7/21/2016 8:05 PM To: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] For Members only: poll on a half or full day meeting at ICANN57 I find the poll options very confusing. Are we asking whether we *want* the F2F? Or are we asking whether we'd participate *if* there's a F2F?
From the choices:
"I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting in person" - Yes/No "I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting remotely" - Yes/No etc. it seems to not capture what appears to be the intent of the poll, namely finding out whether we want a F2F in the first place. My preferences might be "No, I don't want one, but yes, I'll participate if there is one" --- how should I vote?!?!?! A simpler poll might be a single question (instead of 5 questions): 1. Do you want to have a F2F? (a) Yes, full day (b) Yes, half day (c) No. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Members,
As noted during the Working Group call last Wednesday, it may be possible for GNSO PDP Working Groups to conduct either a half-day (4 hours) or full-day face-to-face meeting at ICANN57. These F2F meetings do not replace the “traditional” 60- or 90-minute open meetings that all Working Groups normally conduct at ICANN Public Meetings; rather, the idea of a F2F meeting is to provide a Working Group that is at an appropriate phase in its work with the additional time to focus more intensively on its deliberations, in a closed setting, so as to facilitate consensus building and effective outcomes.
Quite a few Members who attended the call last Wednesday agreed that there seems not to be a pressing need for our Working Group to have such a closed, intensive session at ICANN57. However, to allow all Members the chance to weigh in, staff has created the following poll: http://doodle.com/poll/eu2rt7uuw446srp6.
We will appreciate it if you can fill out the poll at your earliest convenience, noting that it is intended for Members only and that, if a F2F meeting is to take place, it will likely be on Thursday 3 November and remote participation facilities will be made available to those who are not there in person. However, no travel funding will be provided for this specific purpose. Please note also that not conducting a F2F meeting at this time will not prejudice or affect any future decision by the GNSO Council regarding whether and when we might have such a meeting – perhaps at ICANN58 (March 2017) or ICANN59 (June 2017).
Thanks very much.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Apologies for the confusion - we did include an option to not participate but I realize now that various options might not allow for someone to indicate a simple Yes or No. As such, I suggest that members indicate their preference in the Comments section and we will collate those responses as well. Thank you! Cheers Mary Sent from my iPhone On Jul 21, 2016, at 21:00, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: +1 Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy INTA 1-202-704-0408 ________________________________ From: George Kirikos<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: ?7/?21/?2016 8:05 PM To: Mary Wong<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] For Members only: poll on a half or full day meeting at ICANN57 I find the poll options very confusing. Are we asking whether we *want* the F2F? Or are we asking whether we'd participate *if* there's a F2F?
From the choices:
"I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting in person" - Yes/No "I plan to participate in a full-day WG F2F meeting remotely" - Yes/No etc. it seems to not capture what appears to be the intent of the poll, namely finding out whether we want a F2F in the first place. My preferences might be "No, I don't want one, but yes, I'll participate if there is one" --- how should I vote?!?!?! A simpler poll might be a single question (instead of 5 questions): 1. Do you want to have a F2F? (a) Yes, full day (b) Yes, half day (c) No. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Members,
As noted during the Working Group call last Wednesday, it may be possible for GNSO PDP Working Groups to conduct either a half-day (4 hours) or full-day face-to-face meeting at ICANN57. These F2F meetings do not replace the "traditional" 60- or 90-minute open meetings that all Working Groups normally conduct at ICANN Public Meetings; rather, the idea of a F2F meeting is to provide a Working Group that is at an appropriate phase in its work with the additional time to focus more intensively on its deliberations, in a closed setting, so as to facilitate consensus building and effective outcomes.
Quite a few Members who attended the call last Wednesday agreed that there seems not to be a pressing need for our Working Group to have such a closed, intensive session at ICANN57. However, to allow all Members the chance to weigh in, staff has created the following poll: http://doodle.com/poll/eu2rt7uuw446srp6.
We will appreciate it if you can fill out the poll at your earliest convenience, noting that it is intended for Members only and that, if a F2F meeting is to take place, it will likely be on Thursday 3 November and remote participation facilities will be made available to those who are not there in person. However, no travel funding will be provided for this specific purpose. Please note also that not conducting a F2F meeting at this time will not prejudice or affect any future decision by the GNSO Council regarding whether and when we might have such a meeting - perhaps at ICANN58 (March 2017) or ICANN59 (June 2017).
Thanks very much.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (3)
-
George Kirikos -
Lori Schulman -
Mary Wong