On Sep 25, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Danny Younger wrote: A few questions: The Summit Questionnaire revealed that 28 ALSs would like to be a part of the team planning and running the Summit. Who has been assigned to reaching out to these ALSs to formally invite them into the process? I believe the best way to do this is to have each RALO get one or two individuals who are willing to connect with the At-Larges in their region. Summit planning should be an excuse for interaction within regions as well as across them. It would be good to connect with each At-Large Org, understand why or why not they are participating as well as get some more info on their individual goals for the conference. I see from the meeting notes that people have taken that on some of this. Not clear from the notes, if that just entails pushing the questionnaire around again or that plus some more probing. I am willing to do this for NARALO, let me know! When reaching out, it's always good to have a list of tasks that people can sign on to. Perhaps we can draw up a list of tasks that are appropriate for the next three months that ALSs who've signed up for planning can opt in to. These could be suggestions. We should also ask them up front what they feel is the best contribution that they could make to pre-Summit, during the Summit, and for Summit wrap- up. I have some very specific ideas of ways that we could do some outreach, education, and planning work pre-summit to making the Summit event more effective which I will share in a separate email. We should be able to get every ALS involved whether they attend the Summit or not. The Summit Questionnaire revealed that attendees support the idea of a Keynote Speaker. Who is on the team that will select the Keynote speaker? When does this group meet? What selection criteria will be used? This is putting the cart before the horse. We should be paying most attention first to the outcomes that people want out of the conference, then accommodating the format to tailor to the outcomes that participants are looking for. According to the questionnaires compiled so far, the top two priorities that Summit participants are focused on 1) work with other ALSs on current ICANN issues and 2) education on specific topics. Questionaire respondents top two choices for format were both participatory in nature, 1) “combination of panel discussion and audience participation” and 2) “audience participation roundtables.” I’m not sure what “audience participation formats” means. Because of the way the question is worded, it’s not clear if people were voting for "audience participation formats" and/ or "panel discussions." It is clear that respondents strongly favored the first choice over “lecture hall presentations” -- 1.694 vs. 3.178 respectively. Based on the results of the other questions, it looks like people will put up with a keynote if they have to, but it will be taking time away from their stated goals (get something done, learn something) and their preferred ways of accomplishing those ends. The Summit Questionnaire revealed that most favor panel discussions that allow for audience participation. What are the specific topics that will be covered by these panels? What's the process by which the panelists will be selected? The “Outcomes” questions somewhat clarify and somewhat muddle what people are hoping for from the Summit. The number one Outcome listed was “a plan for future work.” Number 2 was a “Declaration of Internet Users Rights as they relate to ICANN mission.” This suggests to me that people are expecting to do some “big picture” work at the Summit- (number 2) as well as create some get informed and move forward on current work (as indicated in the first set of questions.) We have two choices to mine the topics that people want to work on and be educated about (Summit goals 1 and 2). First, the RALOs can go back as I am suggesting, to the ALSs and do some additional probing. Second, we could adopt an open space model for the Summit, which would allow people to “vote with their feet” to work on and/or be educated about the topics that are most pressing to their ALSs come March. I would like to see a combination of these tactics. We can try to anticipate a bit what individual participants see as their most pressing work and information needs then we can reach out to specific experts to be on hand for possible work and/or discussion on those topics. At the same time, we won’t be corralled into sitting through hours and hours of meetings that will be designed to accommodate everyone’s needs, thereby accommodating no one’s needs. I’ve been to several such “open space” events. I have found that they can be extremely effective. Particularly in situations like the one that confronts At-Large: we are all experts at something to do with internet governance or internet users, but none of us are experts at all of it. I propose to the working group and staff we adopt an open space model for the summit; that staff allocates money to hire a qualified and proven facilitator to lead the process; and that we put out an open call to contract such a facilitator. The right person will come with recommendations from happy participants of comparable events. This format would also accommodate the fact that different regions may have different priorities for the Summit. When the additional surveys are compiled (this time hopefully including mine)-- I would like to see the results compiled collectively and per region. Ideally, we will strike upon a form for the summit that allows the At- Large org.s and regions to meet their own goals for the Summit, without straightjacketing anyone else. I believe it’s possible to do so. 4. Are Summit WG members prepared to discuss this stuff on-line by email, or will discussion only happen at a teleconference? I am having terrible luck with syncing up for ICANN related phone calls. In particular, I am traveling non-stop through the month of October. I encourage people to talk when they can, but hope that we can also find accommodate those who can’t.