Dear David,

Thank you very much for initiating the discussion on the efficiency and effectiveness of agenda planning.

Hereby I try to summarise the views of myself and my colleague Alejandra Reynoso, the Chair of the ccNSO Meeting Programme Working Group. We also note that Eberhard has already responded, and we believe our responses are very much aligned with his.

>First, please confirm, if you have not already, your participation in this group by replying to me directly with your confirmation or to note who might be interested in taking that role on behalf of your community. I have heard from many of you and just need others to confirm. (See list below).

The two of us confirm, however we remain hopeful that a more efficient solution will be found.

>We now have 34 SOAC representative on this planning/coordination group for ICANN59.

>a) Is this the right size to for the group to do its work?

No.

>b) Should we limit the group to this number? Expand it? Narrow it?

Narrow it. Significantly!

Each SO/AC should designate one person to:

a) Aggregate information from their respective SO/ACs

b) Present the views of their SO/ACs

c) Decide on behalf of their SO/ACs

>c) Other suggestions?

It looks that the group lacks a full picture of the needs of various SO/ACs.

We strongly suggest that each SO/AC documents its requirements/expectations per type of meeting and shares them with others. To date every time, after huge planning efforts, we have heard “but our SO/AC needs 2,3,4,5 full days of meetings” or “but we need to have a meeting with X-men”. It means that something is wrong in the process. We do not know and do not understand each other’s needs. If someone has the FULL picture, could you share it with the rest of us? It would allow us to identify problems and propose solutions.

>a) What escalation process might work best in this situation to arrive at a decision to resolve session conflicts?

In our view conflicting sessions are inevitable. One can not expect people to spend resources (time, money) to attend a meeting and then go to a session that is of no interest to them. This surely outweighs the issue for those who are not able to choose between several interesting sessions. One just needs to set priorities.

In addition, just proposing an interesting session is not enough, it should be organised properly!

>a) How should we formalize this group?

Each SO/AC designate a person to represent their interests.

>b) Does it need a charter in the short or long term?

Yes. Not sure we can make it before ICANN 59, but we definitely need a charter to which we all commit, including ICANN the organization and the Board.

>c) Who would be willing to help contribute to that effort over the longer term?

We are definitely willing to help in shaping the process.

Kindest regards,

Katrina Sataki, Chair of the ccNSO

Alejandra Reynoso, Chair of the ccNSO Meeting Programme Working Group

David A. Olive
Senior Vice President

Policy Development Support
Managing Director, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212
Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611
Mobile: +90.533.341.6550