OK. Thank you Carlos for your inputs. It's Also noted. Le 24 juil. 2017 18:26, "Carlos Raul Gutierrez" <crg@isoc-cr.org> a écrit :
Fully agree with Sam!
Just look across the street and watch wath the Icann organization does for the CPH in their joint GDD one week meeting....the divergence between NCPH and CPH is becoming and Achilles heel.
What we need is to have fully GNSO focused policy meetings twice a year in easily accessible places. The 1st policy meetings was rather good in Helsinki. The second one already started trying to please everyone with too many sessions and as too far away.
My 2 cents
Carlos Raúl GUTIERREZ Apartado 1571-1000 San José COSTA RICA
On Jul 24, 2017 08:01, "Sam Lanfranco" <lanfran@yorku.ca> wrote:
I want to thank Olevie and Remmy for opening up this discussion about the ICANN Intersessional meetings.
Having attended two ICANN Intersessionals, one at ICANN's expense and one at my own expense, I am left more with questions than with answers on the usefulness of the Intersessionals.
First, they are expensive, both in terms of ICANN costs and the costs to participants. This is particularly true for NPOC/NCSG/NCUC participants who have to take time away from jobs and other tasks. For others, in the contracted and non-contracted commercial constituencies, the time and costs are usually treated as part of their paid time and work. This imbalance occurs for ICANN meetings as well, and there is no simple cure for that imbalance. For me that means that intersessionals have to be evaluated in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness for the subsequent for work of ICANN, in working groups and subsequent ICANN conferences. For the NCSG constituencies "is the gain worth the pain?". What is the evidence of improved efficiency and effectiveness for subsequent ICANN work? That is the question I have, and at most all I have heard is personal opinions (by participants) on the usefulness of the meetings.
Remmy has repeated the oft cited mantra that "this kind of Meeting creates [a] distinct enabling environment for cross-group or constituents collaboration.". That assertion is yet to be tested with any rigor. I will not belabor this point and only observe that I have not sensed any improvement in either working group discussions or the subsequent ICANN meeting discussions on the topics discussed at the intersessionals. Neither have I seen either a deeper understanding of the conflicting positions of other constituencies, or evidence of intersessional fostered compromises being tabled to improve progress in working groups and at ICANN conferences.
The Intersessionals may be a pleasant, albeit costly, experience for those who participate, but we need better evidence that they are worth the effort and expense. I would hope that my assessment in the previous paragraph is wrong, and based in inadequate evidence, and I am more than ready to reverse my assessment in the face of evidence. What do the rest of my NPOC colleagues think about this? What is the evidence?
Sam Lanfranco NPOC/csih
_______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss