Evolving ICANN's MSM - Webinars. - Shared screen with speaker view
Who can see your viewing activity?
Good day! Welcome to Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model - Webinar #2 on 12 September 2019 @ 16:00 UTC.
Multistakeholder Model Website: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance-plan-improve-multistakeholder-model-2019-04-08-enICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-enGoals of the Webinar:** Discuss how we develop the work plan for Evolving ICANN’s MSM.** Understand the issues that have been described by the community as hampering the more effective functioning of ICANN’s MSM.** Address and avoid duplication of work and ensure that the important issues are addressed in the work plan.
Brian, Maureen sends her apologies as she is unable to make it
It had been stated focus would be given to issues 5 to 7, then looping back to the earlier issues, so that both webinars don't run short on the same issues.
yes exactly that is why I came on
are we not following that path
were the webinars sequential? or two different times for different regions?
maybe we are first time attending
Of course, Nadira. However, if time is not managed well today, 5 through 7 might not be discussed at all, which would be undesirable.
Hi Jim, yes the intention was to provide the same webinar in two instances to cover as many time zones as possible.
going brisk to cover all points would do
maybe leaving the Q&A to the end
I agree that would be good, Nadria.
hi everyone. thanks for the opportunity.
depends on the area
Agree with Manal
everyone shall be aprt
I do not see the solutions as relating to the issues. Bringing in new people does not break silos.
Agree with you, Mark!
Manal Ismail (GAC)
+1 Mark ..
@Mark, Barbara, interesting observation - what things might help address the issues? Are there opportunities to explore?
@Theresa I mentioned yesterday that the B meetings were supposed to be exactly about this. Reducing gaps between communities. Helsinki was like that, but then this was abandoned.
@mark this is what I said yesterday
I am not the only one with technical issues ;)
@Mark, Judith, ah - maybe something to look at and capture. Hope you can submit what worked there well, and ideas to the public comments as well.
@Theresa I will make sure this is reflected in the BC draft
@Mark, great, thanks!
On "consensus," I would encourage everyone to examine the GNSO PDP 3.0 group's consensus process and consider its applicability more broadly. Personally, I am quite keen to see the PDP3.0 "solution." Thanks!
for inclusivity we also need to take into account the other meaning, accessibility
also I agree that these leadership programs do not really work well in certain stakeholder groups
it is up to the ac/so to create their own mentoring plans and thee are not funded
thanks I am in a very noisy place so did not speak long, but think we need to rethink a mentoring program. also we create learning tools but then they a not used buy others and each year some ac/sos are asked to create new ones instead of using what was done initially
@Judith, can you elaborate (here in chat is fine) on what you mean about SOACs being asked to create new learning tools?
Chokri ben romdhane
I agree with sebastien no need to agregate the strategic issue holostic view with an organizational issue like role and responsabilities
in past mentor programs Dev and his mentors had created a whole tutorial on icann issues but in the next program these were not used and they were told to create new one or take a different tack. or were not told where the tutorials or other work was so they could be referenced and th n new ones were created
mary I can send you more info on this issue
@Judith, please do, especially as to whether the programs were created at ICANN org’s request. Thank you.
also the ITI is only tackling the icann website and not the wiki
most info is on the wiki and very difficult to find
also on open data again this is only on the icann website and not the wiki and also each ac/so has control over their own site but there is no overarching template on how pages are done or what should be on the page
ITI seems to be a very good step
The tool Judith is talking about: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+Stakeholder+Analysis+Tool
RE external developments causing complexity, is there a dedicated ICANN staff person in each of the international offices and hubs who could contribute to a comprehensive report (compiled at HQ). That might serve as a global legislative/regulatory forecasting tool so the community and ICANN Org can proactively address issues (such as GDPR). Perhaps this already is underway??
It may also be relevant to note that different community groups use the wiki very differently, so in terms of a solution there may not be a one size fits all (in regards to the wiki anyway).
HI Barbara, ICANN has begun a legislative tracking initiative. You can see the reports here: https://www.icann.org/legislative-report-2019
@Barbara, ICANN Org’s Government Engagement team compiles the Tracker Eleeza just linked to.
Thanks Eleeza and Mary!
Chokri ben romdhane
I wonder how the odi initiative will reduce the complexity of the topics treated by ICANN I know will be a good tools to federate outputs of community in one platform but I'm not sure that it will reduce the complexity of ICANN activities
thank you all