• Accept As-Is
• Accept With modification
• Reject

Rationale:

MK: Accept as-is.

15

Paul Diaz

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group

(Support)

52

Osvaldo Novoa

ISPCP

(Support) The face- to-face pilot project certainly needs to be assesses and if beneficial supporting actions should follow. However there are also other options that require consideration that are not part of the current pilot. To assist in realizing diversity and growth with WG’s, holding meetings F2F at ICANN hubs, particularly within developing countries/regions should be explored as part of any outreach program. Whilst it is always useful to try and advance WG discussions during public ICANN meetings, the ISPCP would caution against extending the duration of those meetings on a regular basis as many participants cannot afford to be away from their day jobs/other commitments for lengthy spells. In 2016 the structure of the meetings will begin to change and the opportunities for expanding the face-to-face WG activities may change with it. There should be an emphasis on better remote meeting tools.

178

Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo

Business Constituency

Should be treated with caution. All of the issues listed are common to anyone who works with people in different locations. There is no question that some physical meetings are essential, and beneficial, but physically travelling to many/most WG meetings is neither practicable nor possible. Resource constraints, both time and financial, other professional (and personal) commitments and venue choice issues cannot be easily discounted. While the Draft Report suggests on page 60 that: “Where possible, face-to-face meetings should be held in conjunction with ICANN meetings, before or after the main meeting”, we also note that this is the exact opposite of what we have been told in relation to the new meeting structure. Moreover, we are concerned that the need for additional travel may also serve to discourage volunteers from participating.

205

Stephanie Perrin

NCUC/NCSG

Accountability requirements alone would demand that ICANN do this on a pilot, so yes.

248

Greg Shatan

IPC

(Support) This recommendation should not supersede initiatives to eliminate conflicting sessions from annual ICANN meetings, which regularly and drastically reduce attendance and participation in face-to-face Working Group meetings.

295

Amr Elsadr

I find it difficult to agree that this would be a significantly productive or efficient project. The volume of work conducted remotely far outweighs the work conducted during ICANN meetings. PDP face-to-face meetings are far more effective at getting input from non-WG members present at ICANN meetings, than resolving issues by the WG members.  Making a recommendation to increase the frequency and role of face-to-face meetings is in direct conflict with other more appealing recommendations in this report, particularly those involving increasing geographic representation and perspectives in PDP WG memberships and discussions. The target community members in those recommendations face great difficulties in obtaining visas to travel to meetings on a regular basis. Increasing the role of face-to-face meetings only limits those community members from participating on an equal par with those from North America and Europe.

322

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

ALAC

(Support) It would be interesting to compare a Working Group’s progress when meeting face to face and when conducting conference calls. With precedents in the Cross Community Working Groups on IANA Stewardship Transitions and ICANN Accountability, this pilot is of great interest