ページ履歴
...
| Thematic Group | Report |
|---|---|
Thematic Group 1: The Future of Multi-Stakeholder Models | With regards to TG1, this is how I feel things developed:
1.- What worked well?
I think that the subject of TG1 was itself appealing enough to gather a huge crowd around it and discussion was easily sparked. This was not only an advantage but also a challenge in terms of organizing the discussion and focusing on the subject rather than losing focus as a consequence of having too many people involved and with everyone wanting to comment on the subject. Breaking into smaller groups helped with this challenge and also helped to produce an output that was sufficiently complete in terms of reflecting the wide variety of contributions from the different sub-groups but brief enough to make it concrete and easily understandable to people outside the WG.
2.-What worked less well
I feel we can improve the way participants not only engage but follow the discussion and stay in the room. I felt that, at times, we went from a full room to a mid-empty room. Another area where we can improve is in coordinating the expected outcome document for each TG. The final exercise of consolidating all output documents was rather difficult in terms of trying to find a single format and approach into a single document. This could’ve been easier if between moderators and rapporteurs of all TGs had had a coordination call or a brief meeting before or even while we were conducting the sessions. This would’ve helped to have a uniform format and an easier final consolidation exercise.
3.- What did not work at all
I don’t feel that there was something that didn’t work at all. However, I have a feeling that what worked least well in case of TG1 was the contribution of the SME and in my case my understanding of the role I was supposed to play. I understood that as a moderator I was responsible for conducting the session, sparking discussion, leading it so it wouldn’t get out of focus and coordinating with the rapporteurs the way we were going to build the document. All of this under the assumption (wrongly made by me) that the SME would provide with materials, speakers and a proposed agenda for the TG discussion. What really happened is that I misunderstood my role and kept waiting for the SME to provide what I thought he had to provide but came to a point in which we could wait no longer and had to take over and do all what I expected the SME to do, myself. I felt like there wasn’t enough engagement by our SME. I would have expected him to have a more active role but maybe that was my mistake and lesson learned.
4.- Were people engaged enough? why? how?
I believe we had a good level of engagement in an overall assessment. We had members that were hugely engaged as well as members that weren’t engaged at all. It was interesting to see how there was a mix of both experimented and not-so-experimented members that were highly engaged because they felt they had something to contribute and had the good will to do so, while there were other members whom, by their vast experience, would’ve been thought to be more engaged but ended not only not being engaged but critical of the work done by the TG. When I say critical I mean they criticize the work not in a constructive but a rather negative way.
5.- How can we improve participation before the event?
With capacity building. I saw a lot of people engaged but having average or poor contributions due to a lack of understanding of the subject at the level needed or expected for the outcome document.
6.- How can we improve participation during the event?
- Regulating temperature of the AC system. I found that this was, believe it or not, one of the main reasons for people leaving the room at some time (or so they said).
- Having people rotate the role their having in the TG. For example having different people as rapporteurs during the discussions will help all group members engage, at a certain point, in the subject because they will have the responsibility of reporting the work of the group. This helps fostering participation among those who are either shy or lazy.
- Asking each ATLAS participant to file a personal report on the activities. This will help having people stay in the rooms and engaging with discussion. My experience as a participant of the Fellowship program is that if you tie the stipend/per diem you give to people to this report, you can improve the participation and outcome in a significant level.
I hope these comments help improve our future work. I would’ve loved to have the comments from my co-moderators, rapporteurs and SME but I didn’t get reply, as of this time, from them to an e-mail I sent them asking for their thoughts.
Here my humble report on Thematic Group 1 – The future of Multistackeholder models : What worked well: First of all, I want remark the excellent work done by the people in charge to manage discussion. I think this was a point in favor for this TG. The Labour made by Leon, Evan & Rafid was superlative. Second point to have in account and wich was part of the success of this group: the great level of knowledge of the Thematic Group participants. Lastly in this short resume, I think only one topic generated discussion, this was the concept of multistackeholder model, but this obstacle was solve inmediatly by capacity of the participants as I said before. We had a very constructive, deep and rich dialogue. So, what worked well: the excellent work of TG leaders and participants together contributed to build great and clear debate. What worked less well – I think the only mistake or bad election was the tool to communicate among participants at preparation of final document time. Is the only black point in the TG, but wasn`t important at the end. Finally Evan as reporter was incredible and the final document very good. What did not work at all – Everything work well, maybe could be better but limited times conspired with this. Maybe more discussion could be better to clarify some complex point, specially for new participants. Were people engaged enough? why? how? – yes . debate room was full of people during discussion, and representing a many end users sectors and with diversity and multicultural perspective. How can we improve participation before the event? - I think, and is something that I repeat always, to improve participation is needed a well directioned Outreach. I think each region need to work in outreach independent of ICANN work on this sense, ALSs are who better known the field and needs, and also know how to do with less budget, also some ALSs have people prepared and ready to serve as mentor and teacher for new participants. How can we improve participation during the event? Participation during event will be good, if the selection of TG leaders result good. I think is very important to have a good leader with experience to manage this kind of discussions, giving time and importance to every proposal made into TG, and to know when cut the discussions. Also is important to see who are participating into WG, and if they respect diversity, gender and multiculturalism. |
Thematic Group 2: The Globalization of ICANN | 1.- What worked well? We took advantage of the availability of a guest who brought real life experiences and challenges as a Case Study Michele Neylon was able to join us as special expert for constitutional and legal mechanisms relating to the RAA in particular (and with a uniquely practical focus from his EU based Registrar operator point of view) so we lead off with that question, to act as topic 'ice breaker' and to complement the excellent work and contributions of our SME's 2.-What worked less well? Not being able to conduct our sessions as planned was an annoyance and irritation but we adapted and it did not impede. This is however no doubt because of the skills and experiences of the Leadership and the Group Members themselves. 3.- What did not work at all? The room set up was FAR from desirable and conducive to our planned activities and barely able to be made work as well as it did considering the close quarters and in the round set up in such a small space force us to stay as a single Group rather than any sub groups as planned, we had also wanted to use the very successful 'fish-bowl' discussion technique but that was impossible given the room circumstances... We did however adapt. 4.- Were people engaged enough? why? how? Yes we had a well attended and active group of attendees who did differ to some extent over the 2 days but that included a wide diversity and cross section of our the At-Large Community and included 'old hands' and 'new people', engagement was very interactive in a open yet structured to sub theme question debates and discussions that were inclusive balanced and well managed by the Leadership as well as embraced by the audience. 5.- How can we improve participation before the event? To some extent improved participation will happen because the process will be a known not an unknown one in the community, but we should also test the use of pre event activities, (webinars white paper or straw man projects etc.,) to be run sufficiently in advance but not too far out from the activity, as well as look at some online platforms for collaboration and discussion in preparatory mode for the Groups assuming they can be formed and established far enough in advance. 6.- How can we improve participation during the event? Better participation both in number and contribution can build on the experiences of this 1st effort and develop both expectations of and by our attendees as well as ensure that all roles but critically those of the SME's, Moderators Reporters and any Sub Team Leaders have the benefit of training and shared experiences that will allow for good preparation as well as some streamlining of outcomes. AND to ensure active remote participation and real time collaborative tools are utilized in future events. |
Thematic Group 3: Global Internet: The User Perspective | Feedback on ATLAS 2 session (TG 3) What worked well -Subject Matter Experts provided quality value added comments - Core team meet during the evenings to work extensively to assess the notes and summarize the core ideas
-Lack of process and well defined duties -Despite efforts to have pre-meetings before the Atlas 2 session the facilitator would not attend No pre meetings before we arrived in London with the team and so was difficult to get a good sense of what the Facilitator wanted to do. We needed to have at least 1-2 meetings prior to arrival in London so we could understand how the facilitator or chair's plan for the two full days of the Thematic Group. -Lack of repetition of the key tasks, Rule of thumb is telling people three times the key tasks to assure results -Day One facilitation was more confrontation style -Despite efforts to have pre-meetings before the Atlas 2 session the facilitator would not attend
What did not work at all? -Expectation that a summary to be provided to audience immediately after lunch without any warninglunch without any warning. This was announced in the beginning but because of no communication with reporters or thematic groups leaders it was not feasible. -Lack of full participation -Room layout wasn't conducive to equal discussion and a free flow of ideas ideas We had one of the largest rooms with a large group setup in a classroom format The vast majority of participants didn't speak up during the session session -The facilitators should have engaged silent majority directly to speak up on the topics -Break One suggestion was to break up into small groups and encourage summaries from their discussion; however, because of interpretation issues we were not able to do this. -Small groups organized into linguistic groups with a bilingual reporter. This was a good idea but we had people with from different linguistic groups who were interested in different smaller groups and the only way to do this was to have translators in each of these groups and because this was not possible we were not able to do this.
-Direct questions to individuals for their comment so no one is silent |
Thematic Group 4: ICANN Transparency and Accountability | What worked well: The topics did generate lots of discussion, including some disagreement, which generated further, constructive dialogue. I found splitting the group into smaller groups, with each group reporting back meant everyone was actively involved in the discussions and debates.
What worked less well - the actual venue, in that it was one small room without a lot of room for different groups to hold their discussions. But that is simply what was available, so we made the best of it. (as one does)
What really made life a bit more difficult was that the reporter (Alan) simply had too much on his plate and wasn’t there a lot of the time. My session experts were also not there. Avri didn’t attend at all - which she had already telegraphed, and Hong wasn’t there for close to half the time. In future, if people put hands up, they should commit to being there. Chester was a huge help - he stepped in and was an excellent reporter.
Yes people were engaged - splitting people into smaller groups really helps with engaging people. Some people did have other meetings to go to, but enough stayed around (or came back when they could) so that there was real involvement - which is my suggestion for participation on the day (that, and making sure those who are supposed to be reporters/moderators etc can attend for most if not all of the discussion).
I’m not sure how to improve participation before hand - up for discussion
As to time pressures - accountability and transparency was a big topic. We tried to deal with both, but we took time defining the task, agreeing on terminology and then were pressed for time to come up with recommendations.
In future, possibly better defining (or confining) topics may help. |
Thematic Group 5: At-Large Community Engagement in ICANN | 1. What worked well?
- Whilist TG5 was a small group, the diversity and the sustained interest of the At-Large members worked well, even after the 2 day formal meetings of TG5 on Saturday and Sunday. - SMEs offered invaluable insights on the topic and issues raised. - Rapporteurs did well to capture the points raised and to put the myriad of points into a initial form for the rest us to rev - using Google Docs for others to members to simultaneously review and edit the document worked well especially after the 2 day formal TG5 meetings.
2. What worked less well
- the unavailability of one of the SME on Saturday (Murray). - the unavailability of one of the SME on Sunday (Stéphane Van Gelder). - the inability to adjust the room temperature which got really cold on Sunday and was a distraction in the period before lunch. - lack of a spare room for TG5 to meet to discuss and review the TG5 document on Monday and Tuesday.
3. What did not work at all
Perhaps not "did not work at all" but the lack of another formal session for the TG5 might have helped finalise the document quicker, instead of scrambling on Wednesday morning. would have helped expecting that two days of formal sessions alone would have been sufficient to allow for a statement by the group to be ready by Wednesday. However, I realise this was difficult given ICANN's packed schedule.
4.- Were people engaged enough? why? how?
Intially, persons were somewhat tepid, during the first few hours, but this passed as more and more persons relaxed to ask questions and offer opinions. Initially, I was concerned that a lot of time was being taken with Stephane's presentations on Saturday but this might have given enough time for the group to reflect on the issues and to get more comfortable with speaking on the issues. I was impressed and heartened by the tenacity of the members who colloborated and discussed after the main TG sessions to review (and re-review) TG5's output document.
5.- How can we improve participation before the event?
- earlier group preparation. A lot was rushed during the last 2 weeks before the ICANN meeting, but more time, could have meant having a conference call and deeper discussion with the TG5 Team (SME, Moderators, Reporters, etc) and for conference calls with all the TG5 members for all to be better prepared on the subject matter.
6.- How can we improve participation during the event?
Lack of interpretation meant that non English speaking persons interested in TG5 discussions could not be in this TG. So having interpretation would have attracted a greater diversity of persons and perspectives. |
