Comment Close


Assignee(s) and

Call for
Call for
Vote OpenVote
Vote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
07.10.2013ICANN and SO-AC Leaders Brainstorming CollaborationSubmittedOlivier Crepin-Leblond (EURALO)02.10.201304.10.2013n/an/an/an/a07.10.2013David Olive  


Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.


Dear SO-AC Leaders:

Thanks to those of you who were able to participate in Thursday’s ICANN/SO-AC Leaders Collaborative Brainstorming Conference Call on the Buenos Aires Meeting schedule.  An overview of our discussion follows.

The changes call participants agreed to pursue, with further consultation, for the Buenos Aires Meeting schedule are:

  • Establishing a 90-minute, cross-constituency, subject-based session developed and run by the SO-AC leadership team and held Monday afternoon in the main meeting room. Initial thoughts on two potential topics were:
    • Policy vs. Implementation, and
    • Public Interest Commitment Issues

We would appreciate your reactions on whether or not you would support holding this session, as well as the potential session topics to be discussed. If you wish to proceed with this concept, the Policy team is ready to assist you in organizing your discussions and planning for such a session, as you deem appropriate. 

  • Running a new gTLD (GDD) track on Monday in parallel to high-interest topic sessions taking place in the main meeting room.
  • Moving the Public Forum from Thursday afternoon to Thursday morning in an effort to increase attendance.
  • Adding timeslots for high-interest topics and community sessions on Thursday afternoon. 

A suggested change that will not be implemented for Buenos Aires is a full day of SO-AC reports to the community on Wednesday.  Participants agreed that there is not time to make significant changes to the Tuesday and Wednesday schedules.

For those of you who were unable to participate in the call, a transcript AND chat room comments are attached.  A link to an audio recording of the call is below.

Please provide your thoughts about these ideas at your earliest convenience but no later than Monday, 7 October. We look forward to your comments, and a continuing dialogue as we strive to improve the ICANN Meeting experience for the community.  We’ll look to arrange some specific follow-up calls to discuss the Monday afternoon session in detail.

Best regards,

Sally & David 

Sally Costerton, Senior Advisor to the President, Global Stakeholder Engagement
David A. Olive, Vice President, Policy Development Support / General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters – Istanbul

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.



  • No labels


  1. I wish I felt better about this proposal.  What will be sacrificed is the multi-stakeholder forum which we have have now held twice and has proved very successful in attracting speakers from other AC/SOs - and shedding real light on important issues that face us as ALAC.  Instead, what is promised will be too big, with too many people, and too little focus to have the same depth of discussion.  As to the topics, there is a GNSO WG (Cheryl, Alan and I are members) discussing the policy vs implementation issue.  Once discussions and outcomes are finalised, it will be open for public discussion and debate.  So why now for this topic.  PIC issues are also second order.  I'd rather have a lengthy discussion on the new gTLDs and how to move forward in what is an increasingly creaky, leaky boat before we all sink. (the farce that is the com/cam decision, or the contradictory decisions on singular/plural are but the latest)

    So I'm not in favour. That said, I'm not sure it is politic to say no to Sally, and the end result will be that it goes ahead regardless.  But I hold out little hope that it will be anywhere as interesting and thought provoking as the multi-stakeholder forums (fora for us pedants) that Rinalia has organised. 



  2. I think the 90-minute cross-constituency meeting Monday afternoon is a good idea. However, it is not clear if there will be another meeting running concurrently. If that is the case there will be people with meeting conflicts again. My suggestion is to make sure that during these 90 minutes there are no other meetings scheduled.

    Also, if the purpose of moving the Public Forum to Thursday morning is to increase attendance, then I will recommend to move it to Monday afternoon immediately  after the suggested cross-constituency meeting. I am pretty sure the attendance that day would be even better.

  3. I am (as I was when we first tried this years ago)  in favour of a TRUE and Genuine Cross Community Activity on the Monday afternoon of an ICANN Meeting... the topic  should of course be a wide ranging one with interest to the majority of our community ... and Yes  NOT clash with anything else formally scheduled ...


    I am ambivalent re the Public Forum (PF)  position  but have seen over the years benefit of things being brought forward at the Thur PF that have been discussed and collaborated on during the week... So that should be considered...

    Re Holly's point on the recent At-Large Multi-Stakeholder Forums (which I support continuing of course=> where a suitable topic exists) these should be continued  but do not need to clash with these other plans (in a way these are the distant cousin to the proposed (and prior) Cross-Constituency Meetings...