SOAC ICANN59 Planning Group - Organizational Issues
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? b) Should we limit the group to this number? Expand it? Narrow it? c) Other suggestions? 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? 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? 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? b) Does it need a charter in the short or long term? c) Who would be willing to help contribute to that effort over the longer term? 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
David, I am an observer to this group, as the chair of ccNSO's TechWg since we are organizing the whole-day TechDay on Mondays, to which I try to restrict myself. I have no opinion whether this Wg should become formalized, what size it should have and so on but it most certainly needs a charter. That then also creates the opportunity of having (appointed) members, (appointed) observers, and (self selected) participants. Perhaps even a Rapporteur :-)-O My observation so far is that the only major issue that this group has encountered was one of lack of diligence manifesting after a deadline. So the track record is good, and I believe that really unresolvable scheduling conflicts may benefit from a "command decision" on occasion rather than having the interested parties trying to sort it out amongst themselves, in particular when in subsequent meetings the decision is reversed in the spirit of fairness. The real issue is whether we need so many sessions, about which I most certainly have an opinion, but that is a different question entirely, and not for this group. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 27 Mar 2017, at 20:53, 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? b) Should we limit the group to this number? Expand it? Narrow it? c) Other suggestions?
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? 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? 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? b) Does it need a charter in the short or long term? c) Who would be willing to help contribute to that effort over the longer term?
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 <image001.png> 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
<image001.png> _______________________________________________ Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59
Dear David, On behalf of the GAC Chair, please note that the GAC Vice-Chairs should be added to the list, preferably by adding the address gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org> . This is important to ensure GAC presence at the calls, in case of conflicts for the GAC Chair (who is currently the only GAC representative on the list). The purpose is thus to safeguard due attendance, not to increase the size of the group. Very best regards Olof From: soac-leaders-icann59-bounces@icann.org [mailto:soac-leaders-icann59-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 20:54 To: soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org Subject: [Soac-leaders-icann59] SOAC ICANN59 Planning Group - Organizational Issues 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? b) Should we limit the group to this number? Expand it? Narrow it? c) Other suggestions? 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? 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? 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? b) Does it need a charter in the short or long term? c) Who would be willing to help contribute to that effort over the longer term? 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 [cid:image002.png@01D2A8BC.6831FC30] alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> andrei@rol.ru<mailto:andrei@rol.ru> aso-chairs@aso.icann.org<mailto:aso-chairs@aso.icann.org> bverd@verisign.com<mailto:bverd@verisign.com> cwilson@21cf.com<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com> donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na> farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> gbunton@tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> german@nro.net<mailto:german@nro.net> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> hcarrascob@gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr> jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv> kdrstoll@gmail.com<mailto:kdrstoll@gmail.com> leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> mcknight.glenn@gmail.com<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com> patrik@frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se> pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org> rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> rysgsecretariat@gmail.com<mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com> sb.inapp@gmail.com<mailto:sb.inapp@gmail.com> secretariat@icannregistrars.org<mailto:secretariat@icannregistrars.org> thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch> tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto: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<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550>
Thank you, Olof. We will add the GAC VCs via adding the address gac-leadership@icann.org . Regards, David 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 From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 7:43 PM To: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org>, "soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org" <soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org> Cc: "gac-leadership@icann.org" <gac-leadership@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Soac-leaders-icann59] SOAC ICANN59 Planning Group - Organizational Issues Dear David, On behalf of the GAC Chair, please note that the GAC Vice-Chairs should be added to the list, preferably by adding the address gac-leadership@icann.org . This is important to ensure GAC presence at the calls, in case of conflicts for the GAC Chair (who is currently the only GAC representative on the list). The purpose is thus to safeguard due attendance, not to increase the size of the group. Very best regards Olof From: soac-leaders-icann59-bounces@icann.org [mailto:soac-leaders-icann59-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 20:54 To: soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org Subject: [Soac-leaders-icann59] SOAC ICANN59 Planning Group - Organizational Issues 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? b) Should we limit the group to this number? Expand it? Narrow it? c) Other suggestions? 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? 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? 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? b) Does it need a charter in the short or long term? c) Who would be willing to help contribute to that effort over the longer term? 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
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 SOAC ICANN59 e-mail list alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt <mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> andrei@rol.ru <mailto:andrei@rol.ru> aso-chairs@aso.icann.org <mailto:aso-chairs@aso.icann.org> bverd@verisign.com <mailto:bverd@verisign.com> cwilson@21cf.com <mailto:cwilson@21cf.com> donna.austin@neustar.biz <mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na> farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> gbunton@tucows.com <mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> german@nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net> gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> hcarrascob@gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr <mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr> jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> kdrstoll@gmail.com <mailto:kdrstoll@gmail.com> leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> mcknight.glenn@gmail.com <mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> patrik@frobbit.se <mailto:patrik@frobbit.se> pdiaz@pir.org <mailto:pdiaz@pir.org> rafik.dammak@gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> rysgsecretariat@gmail.com <mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com> sb.inapp@gmail.com <mailto:sb.inapp@gmail.com> secretariat@icannregistrars.org thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch> tom@acig.com.au <mailto:tom@acig.com.au> tonyarholmes@btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto: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 <tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 <tel:+90.533.341.6550>
Thank you Katrina. Your views and comments, ad well as your ccNSO colleagues, are important. As is the ccNSO willingness to assist in improving this mechanism. Best regards . David Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:11 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> wrote: 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
SOAC ICANN59 e-mail list <image001.png> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> andrei@rol.ru<mailto:andrei@rol.ru> aso-chairs@aso.icann.org<mailto:aso-chairs@aso.icann.org> bverd@verisign.com<mailto:bverd@verisign.com> cwilson@21cf.com<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com> donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na> farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> gbunton@tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> german@nro.net<mailto:german@nro.net> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> hcarrascob@gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr> jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv> kdrstoll@gmail.com<mailto:kdrstoll@gmail.com> leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> mcknight.glenn@gmail.com<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com> patrik@frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se> pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org> rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> rysgsecretariat@gmail.com<mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com> sb.inapp@gmail.com<mailto:sb.inapp@gmail.com> secretariat@icannregistrars.org<mailto:secretariat@icannregistrars.org> thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch> tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto: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<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550>
Hi Katrina, David I agree with most of your responses, particularly with regard to “It looks that the group lacks a full picture of the needs of various SO/ACs”. We certainly do lack the full picture and I believe that if we understood the needs of the respective SO/ACs, and more generally what each SO/AC considers the purpose of ICANN meetings, we will better understand some of the problems we continually experience related to scheduling. I would add one qualifier and that is that the GNSO is not a homogenous group and as such we will need to drill down to Stakeholder Groups and Consiturencies. Similarly, we should take this into account in determing the size of this planning group. I’m not convinced we need a Charter as I believe this could be an unnecessary distraction. We run into two repeat problems – what is worthy of a High Interest Topic or Cross-Community Discussion subject and how do we reduce the number of conflicting sesions. If we can spend some time trying to solve these problems we should have a clearer path to developing a schedule people are more comfortable with. I would also note that the MSWG had a number of guiding principles that I believe could be helpful in these discussions. Thanks Donna Vice Chair, GNSO Council Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: soac-leaders-icann59-bounces@icann.org [mailto:soac-leaders-icann59-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:11 AM To: 'David Olive' <david.olive@icann.org>; soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org Subject: Re: [Soac-leaders-icann59] SOAC ICANN59 Planning Group - Organizational Issues 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 SOAC ICANN59 e-mail list [cid:image001.png@01D2A926.0F8261A0] alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> andrei@rol.ru<mailto:andrei@rol.ru> aso-chairs@aso.icann.org<mailto:aso-chairs@aso.icann.org> bverd@verisign.com<mailto:bverd@verisign.com> cwilson@21cf.com<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com> donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na> farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> gbunton@tucows.com<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> german@nro.net<mailto:german@nro.net> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com> hcarrascob@gmail.com<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com> hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr> jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> katrina@nic.lv<mailto:katrina@nic.lv> kdrstoll@gmail.com<mailto:kdrstoll@gmail.com> leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> mcknight.glenn@gmail.com<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com> patrik@frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se> pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org> rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> rysgsecretariat@gmail.com<mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com> sb.inapp@gmail.com<mailto:sb.inapp@gmail.com> secretariat@icannregistrars.org<mailto:secretariat@icannregistrars.org> thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch> tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto: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<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550>
Hi David, please see my comments inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 27.03.2017 um 20:53 schrieb David Olive:
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?
by far too large
b) Should we limit the group to this number? Expand it? Narrow it?
narrow it and limit then
c) Other suggestions?
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?
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?
for Jo'burg: find out which groups may be impacted by the conflict and find a solution between them and staff
once there's a "limited" group: use this group
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?
see b)
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?
max. 2 delegates per SO/AC to be selected by those groups
b)Does it need a charter in the short or long term?
definitely yes
c)Who would be willing to help contribute to that effort over the longer term?
I'm sure one member of the ISPCP constituency will contribute to this effort
*/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 <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt <mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt>
andrei@rol.ru <mailto:andrei@rol.ru>
aso-chairs@aso.icann.org <mailto:aso-chairs@aso.icann.org>
bverd@verisign.com <mailto:bverd@verisign.com>
cwilson@21cf.com <mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>
donna.austin@neustar.biz <mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz>
el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>
farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
gbunton@tucows.com <mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>
german@nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net>
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>
haforrestesq@gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>
hcarrascob@gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>
hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr <mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr>
jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>
katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>
kdrstoll@gmail.com <mailto:kdrstoll@gmail.com>
leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
mcknight.glenn@gmail.com <mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>
ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info>
ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>
patrik@frobbit.se <mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>
pdiaz@pir.org <mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>
rafik.dammak@gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
rysgsecretariat@gmail.com <mailto:rysgsecretariat@gmail.com>
sb.inapp@gmail.com <mailto:sb.inapp@gmail.com>
secretariat@icannregistrars.org <mailto:secretariat@icannregistrars.org>
thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>
tom@acig.com.au <mailto:tom@acig.com.au>
tonyarholmes@btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>
wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto: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 <tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 <tel:+90.533.341.6550>
_______________________________________________ Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59
-- Am Steinringer Berg 19 53639 Königswinter Tel: 02244 873999 Fax: 02244 873955 Mob: 0151 1452 5867
David, My answers are below. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> 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 <+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550
_______________________________________________ Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59
participants (7)
-
Austin, Donna -
David Olive -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Katrina Sataki -
Olof Nordling -
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben