David,

My answers are below.

Greg

Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc@gmail.com

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:53 PM, David Olive <david.olive@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Community Leaders and Representatives:

The purpose of this note is to follow-up on our discussions in Copenhagen, to test out new ICANN59 planning group email list and to get your feedback on a few operational issues that may help us work together more efficiently and effectively in the agenda planning for the Johannesburg meeting.

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).

Secondly, it would be helpful to hear your views on the following operational matters:

1) 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?

I think basing discussions on the gross headcount creates a mis-impression, since it includes representatives that are likely appointed as alternates or back-ups. Having a single representative of any organization can lead to gaps in coverage or bringing in a substitute who is not up to speed on the work of this group.

At some point, this group could be too large, or there could be too many voices representing the same stakeholders or planners. But a simple headcount is not really helpful in understanding whether we have the right people or we are the right size. A more nuanced understanding of who is participating would be necessary to answer this question and the ones following.

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

I think we need to be careful about the composition of the group, but it's not simply a numbers game. We need to understand who is here and what they bring to the process (and bring back to their group). The measures should be based on representation and on value added -- not headcount. We also need to consider the relationship between the members of the group and the overall calendar of the meeting, i.e., some groups are responsible for or affected by more sessions than others, so a "one size fits all" approach may not make sense.

As Donna notes, representation solely at the SO/AC level does not make sense in all cases. All groups with significant planning responsibility need to be represented. At ICANN58, the IPC was solely responsible for planning 3 meetings on the schedule and jointly responsible (as a part of the CSG) for planning 8 meetings on the schedule. 7 of these 11 meetings were planned in conjunction with other SGs or ACs. (An additional bilateral meeting was held at ICANN57 but could not be scheduled for ICANN58.) IPC also had to provide representative speakers to 2 events. IPC also contributed directly to the planning of one of the High Interest Topics. (This does not even take into account the GNSO WGs, CCWGs and regularly-scheduled session that some or all IPC members need to attend and participate in during the course of the meeting.) It would be most unsatisfactory to try and deal with all of this without direct participation in this planning process.

In the GNSO, the GNSO Council manages a significant schedule of Council activities, and also helps to coordinate both SG/C activities and GNSO Working Group activities. Each SG and C also has a significant set of planning responsibilities (like that of the IPC mentioned above), and needs to represent the scheduling concerns of its members and stakeholders. These groups each need direct representation. The GNSO is essentially an "umbrella organization" that embraces the Council and separate Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. It's next to impossible and would be clearly unsatisfactory to ask one or two people to represent these varied interests in any meaningful way.

c) Other suggestions?

Provide the facts of who is participating so that we can conduct a reasoned discussion of the question. Look at the relationships between various groups and the schedule to see if it suggests anything about the makeup of the group.

I will once again raise my suggestion of "user journeys" -- or at least tracks. The concern was raised that there were times without a single session germane to some groups, e.g., ccNSO members. This could be identified and minimized by looking at the "user journey" of a ccNSO avatar. Conflicts could also be minimized through the use of "user journeys." I don't think there is a hierarchy of harms between having a significant conflict and having an empty spot in one's schedule -- too many of each are bad. Of course not all conflicts are created equal -- but we have had "bad conflicts" (direct subject matter conflicts or conflicting mandatory attendance where "prioritizing" isn't a solution) that should have been avoided. There will always be conflicts on the GNSO/gTLD-related schedule -- but the GNSO is not represented by one "user journey" (rather, there are a fairly substantial number of different "user types" under the GNSO umbrella. The "trick" is to avoid conflicts (and empty spots) for a particular user journey. (I will note that I had one free hour during the entire meeting and I was shocked....)

2) This planning group will also be asked to advise/decide on how best to evaluate and determine schedule blocks for the Johannesburg meeting. As a part of that effort, individual community session requests and suggestions may involve topics or activities not directly related to the specific policy/advice priorities of your individual SOAC groups at the Policy Forum. Invariably, conflicts are likely to arise in the number of sessions generally or specific session day and time requests. When those circumstances arise.,

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

Discussion in this group is the best way to resolve conflicts. I would hope there would be few if any instances where an impasse would lead to the need to "escalate" a situation.

b) Should conflicts be referred to a smaller SO-AC Chairs group for guidance on such issues or should we keep the discussion among this entire ICANN59 planning group?

The discussion should take place in the regular group, along with discussions between the groups directly affected. I would not use a smaller SOAC chair group for resolving concerns, though some non-binding guidance could be worthwhile. I would expect that the GNSO Chair would need to take into consideration the concerns (including conflicting concerns) of each SG and C if these groups are not directly represented in the smaller group, as well as the concerns of the Council as a planning entity.

c) If we use this entire group in those “conflict” situations, what preferred mechanism should we consider to resolve such conflicts or requests - voting by each SOAC or consensus among the entire group?

3) Your responses to these questions will help us address the shorter-term planning needs for the Johannesburg meeting, but a longer-term plan for us all may require more formality.

a) How should we formalize this group?

We need an acronym. Beyond that, we should be just formalized enough that the role of the group is recognized and facilitated.

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

It would make sense to have a limited set of agreed rules and procedures, so we have a common set of working methods. I agree with Donna that there are a few key issues that need to be dealt with; beyond that a formal charter drafting process could just become a distraction and time-suck.

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

I am sure that at least one member of the IPC will be willing to contribute.

Thanks for entertaining these preliminary questions as the planning process gets going. I will collect and summarize all responses and we’ll shortly be working to schedule a discussion/planning call.

As we work to continue together to evolve our collaborative meeting planning methodologies, we’ll likely face additional process or operational questions. I look forward to continuing this dialogue with all of you!

Best regards,

David

SOAC ICANN59 e-mail list
alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca

alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt
andrei@rol.ru
aso-chairs@aso.icann.org
bverd@verisign.com
cwilson@21cf.com
donna.austin@neustar.biz
el@lisse.na
farzaneh.badii@gmail.com
gbunton@tucows.com
german@nro.net
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
h.raiche@internode.on.net
haforrestesq@gmail.com
hcarrascob@gmail.com
hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr
jbladel@godaddy.com
katrina@nic.lv
kdrstoll@gmail.com
leonfelipe@sanchez.mx
mcknight.glenn@gmail.com
ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info
ocl@gih.com
patrik@frobbit.se
pdiaz@pir.org
rafik.dammak@gmail.com
rysgsecretariat@gmail.com
sb.inapp@gmail.com
secretariat@icannregistrars.org
thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch
tom@acig.com.au
tonyarholmes@btinternet.com
wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de

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

_______________________________________________
Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list
Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59