About the Non Contracted Parties House
Hi all, I've read about this in the NCUC mailing list and I wanted to open the dame debate hear on NPOC general mailing as far as it's in concernant too. What is the NPOC position about the Intersessional meetings ? To learn more about please do visit the followin URL. https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/About+Us For the newcomers : please, feel free to ask any question. Warm regards Olévié
Hi Olevie It's important also to know that this kind of Meeting creates distinct enabling environment for cross-group or constitutes collaboration. Every one knows how busy ICANN meeting is always and its good to learn on close range those also playing on policy development from the other entities within ICANN community and even form synergy. Thanks. Remmy On 23 Jul 2017 6:10 pm, "Olévié Kouami" <olivierkouami@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I've read about this in the NCUC mailing list and I wanted to open the dame debate hear on NPOC general mailing as far as it's in concernant too. What is the NPOC position about the Intersessional meetings ? To learn more about please do visit the followin URL. https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/About+Us For the newcomers : please, feel free to ask any question. Warm regards Olévié
_______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you. What is the others point of view ? NPOC membres have to express their voices on this concern. Please, let's be informed and react too. Warm regards Olévié Le 24 juil. 2017 12:12 PM, "Remmy Nweke" <remmyn@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hi Olevie
It's important also to know that this kind of Meeting creates distinct enabling environment for cross-group or constitutes collaboration. Every one knows how busy ICANN meeting is always and its good to learn on close range those also playing on policy development from the other entities within ICANN community and even form synergy. Thanks. Remmy
On 23 Jul 2017 6:10 pm, "Olévié Kouami" <olivierkouami@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I've read about this in the NCUC mailing list and I wanted to open the dame debate hear on NPOC general mailing as far as it's in concernant too. What is the NPOC position about the Intersessional meetings ? To learn more about please do visit the followin URL. https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/About+Us For the newcomers : please, feel free to ask any question. Warm regards Olévié
_______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
Dear Olevie, Thanks for bringing this up, The NCPH as it concerns us NPOC especially in regards to intersessional, is where we met as NPOC to deliberate on various aspects of the PDP processes we all involved in within the GNSO. Prior to any intersessional, there is always series conference calls organized by ICANN VP for policy and his staff to discuss key pointers that the GNSO community will like to discuss within the intersessional, we then have a compromise and set the agenda for the two day meeting. We all have roles and moderate different sessions based on the agenda set. I think its good for members of the NPOC community to look at the last intersessional deliberations and outcomes link is https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2017+-+Documents Kind Regards Poncelet On 24 July 2017 at 12:35, Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you. What is the others point of view ? NPOC membres have to express their voices on this concern. Please, let's be informed and react too. Warm regards Olévié
Le 24 juil. 2017 12:12 PM, "Remmy Nweke" <remmyn@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hi Olevie
It's important also to know that this kind of Meeting creates distinct enabling environment for cross-group or constitutes collaboration. Every one knows how busy ICANN meeting is always and its good to learn on close range those also playing on policy development from the other entities within ICANN community and even form synergy. Thanks. Remmy
On 23 Jul 2017 6:10 pm, "Olévié Kouami" <olivierkouami@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I've read about this in the NCUC mailing list and I wanted to open the dame debate hear on NPOC general mailing as far as it's in concernant too. What is the NPOC position about the Intersessional meetings ? To learn more about please do visit the followin URL. https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/About+Us For the newcomers : please, feel free to ask any question. Warm regards Olévié
_______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
_______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
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
Thanks for sharing. Well said! Le 24 juil. 2017 14:01, "Sam Lanfranco" <lanfran@yorku.ca> a écrit :
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
I agree that merit is yet to be found, but I do think that an event where the NCHP can work face-to-face, even within the constituencies, is very much needed and can be very useful, specially for those who are ver bad connected, like us, for us meeting and working face to face advances the work greatly, while commercial people often leave much closer or have better ways to accomplish things on the distance. I think, and I expressed this since my first intercessional, that this is not being met, that the agendas are not properly arranged and that it does seem a ver improvised thing. For once, it has’t improved at all the way that the NCHP coordinate their interest against the CHP, which should be the MAIN issue in those meetings. It has been so far a very “light” introduction/discussion, but, in the last one in Iceland, I think there was a least an honest try when specific subject where arranged and presented. I think that if the agenda works around that, it is beneficial to the community, and it also gives a fourth opportunity for face to face work for internal matters. I don’t know how much this cost, and probably we could do much better things with the money, but if you see all ICANN expenses, this is not the one that makes less sense, a high level meeting of a reduced and representative team of the GNSO Council and Constituencies should make sense. So, in conclusion, I support the idea of the intercessional, but with a lot of things to change, add and try. Among those things, I would add a better track of things accomplished. I do not know if it is neccesarry to have a transcript for transparency, I think having an open mic in one meeting to more “freely” discuss things inc confidence can help to break silos, and since all other this are in transcript and open databases, it is hardly a problem to know “what our representatives are doing”. The voting and real debates, the documents and all other matter are already open. Cheers, Martín Silva
On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Sa m 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
Thank you for your feedback. It's noted. Cheers ! Le 24 juil. 2017 17:39, "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> a écrit :
I agree that merit is yet to be found, but I do think that an event where the NCHP can work face-to-face, even within the constituencies, is very much needed and can be very useful, specially for those who are ver bad connected, like us, for us meeting and working face to face advances the work greatly, while commercial people often leave much closer or have better ways to accomplish things on the distance. I think, and I expressed this since my first intercessional, that this is not being met, that the agendas are not properly arranged and that it does seem a ver improvised thing. For once, it has’t improved at all the way that the NCHP coordinate their interest against the CHP, which should be the MAIN issue in those meetings. It has been so far a very “light” introduction/discussion, but, in the last one in Iceland, I think there was a least an honest try when specific subject where arranged and presented. I think that if the agenda works around that, it is beneficial to the community, and it also gives a fourth opportunity for face to face work for internal matters. I don’t know how much this cost, and probably we could do much better things with the money, but if you see all ICANN expenses, this is not the one that makes less sense, a high level meeting of a reduced and representative team of the GNSO Council and Constituencies should make sense.
So, in conclusion, I support the idea of the intercessional, but with a lot of things to change, add and try. Among those things, I would add a better track of things accomplished. I do not know if it is neccesarry to have a transcript for transparency, I think having an open mic in one meeting to more “freely” discuss things inc confidence can help to break silos, and since all other this are in transcript and open databases, it is hardly a problem to know “what our representatives are doing”. The voting and real debates, the documents and all other matter are already open.
Cheers, Martín Silva
On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Sa m 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
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
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
participants (6)
-
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent -
Olévié Kouami -
Poncelet Ileleji -
Remmy Nweke -
Sam Lanfranco