Hi all,
Thanks very much to Staff for putting together these materials and for all the work that they have put into figuring out how to make ICANN 74 as successful and
productive as possible.
The views of the RySG are very much in line with Phillipe’s views below, especially that as a Policy Forum, ICANN 74 should focus on progressing PDP work and
other important work efforts that are currently underway and could benefit from increased face-to-face interaction. There was not a lot of enthusiasm from RySG members to pursue a themed approach to one of the meeting days, especially in light of the schedule
constraints that will exist for this first hybrid meeting. I also support Alejandra’s advice to try to keep this meeting as simple as possible so that we all can learn from this experience.
One key question that came up in my discussion with the RySG was whether there will be any ability to hold “closed” meetings at ICANN 74, which is to say, meetings
where attendance is closed to just the individuals working in a specific group or on a specific topic and not open to public observers (e.g., the Community Representatives Group working on selecting the IRT Standing Panelists). These used to be a regular feature
of face-to-face meetings and will be critical to advancing some important work streams. For ICANN 74, we would need the ability to have such closed meetings but also facilitate remote participation to members of those groups who are attending remotely. It
would also be very helpful to know if there will be any ability to reserve sign-up rooms for smaller meetings while on the ground in The Hague, or if everything must be scheduled in advance.
At this point, the RySG does not have any topics to suggest for a Plenary session, but again is concerned with putting further constraints on an already tight
schedule. Our priority for this meeting is to provide as much time as possible for working sessions and meetings.
Thanks again for all the work that has gone into the planning so far.
Best,
Sam
--
Samantha Demetriou
RySG Chair
Dear Mary,
Thanks for putting this together. I’d like to emphasise what I have mentioned a couple of times in the chat during our call. This is intended to be a policy forum
and (as you know well) a large part of the PDP work will take place within the WGs, it’s important we give them time and space for them to meet and work on-site (traveling conditions & time zone permitting…).
So with this in mind, if
1) the plenaries are to be more than 1 and unconflicted,
2) each SO/AC only has one room assigned as I seem to understand
Then this is an intractable planning equation to solve for the GNSO – and given the SO/AC representation to some WGs, the impact is probably broader than just
us.
We have had requests from WGs to meet (sometimes multiple requests), ideally the SG/Cs will also want to meet, we would rather have a couple of empty slots because
people feel they have beaten the issues at hand to death (and we all know we love doing that) rather than not given them that opportunity to meet up.
I think we all appreciate that the number of plenaries + number of rooms will be key in making this a success, hope this can be accommodated in light of the above.
All the best,
Philippe
Orange Restricted
Dear community leaders and members of the Community Meetings Planning Group,
Please find attached the relevant materials from the first production call for ICANN74 that we held yesterday with the Community Meetings Planning Group. These
are: (1) the preliminary overview of what to expect on-site in The Hague; (2) the slides used on the call; and (3) the requested summary of the proposal to pilot a limited, thematic approach for ICANN74.
Please also note the following dates and additional points:
-
On Item (1) – We will be making additional and more detailed information available on
31 March, and updating that information regularly as the meeting dates draw nearer.
-
On Item (2) – While we anticipate maintaining the enclosed production schedule, please refer to the summary proposal document for an UPDATED illustrative block schedule.
-
On Item (3) – As requested, we have prepared a summary of the proposal to pilot a thematic approach for ICANN74. The summary document UPDATES a number of points that were in the original slides, based on the group’s feedback and discussion
during the call. These include:
-
Suggesting that the pilot be limited to just one daily track rather than two or more themes across the meeting;
-
Updating the block schedule to reflect an additional slot (Block 5); and
-
Clarifying the differences between a “plenary” session and a “thematic” work track.
We hope that the summary proposal addresses the questions that were raised during the call. We hope that, in accordance with the deadlines proposed in the paper,
your community groups can provide feedback as follows:
-
By 31 March – on the proposed thematic pilot; and
-
By 1 April – on plenary sessions.
Please refer to the summary proposal for more details about these requests and deadlines. Thank you!
Cheers
Mary (on behalf of the org team supporting ICANN Public Meeting planning)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.