RE: [wg-e] WG E: Part 4 Awareness

["Ben Edelman" <edelman@law.harvard.edu>]

Kilnam Chon asked:

> 1. do you have any recommendation what "workshop" or seminars we would
>    have next march when we have icann meeting in africa?
>
> 2. what about next july when we have icann meeting in japan?
>
> 3. are these regionally coordinated workshops appropriate?  or shall we
>    have globally coordinated workshop instead?

First of all, I just want to say that I think these are exactly the right
three questions to ask in thinking more about the workshops.  I don't
pretend to have all the answers... but I do think these questions will lead
us there.

The answer to 1, I imagine, follows from the issues to be considered in the
March meeting tentatively to be held in Africa.  (Though note that
<http://www.icann.org/general/meeting-spec.htm> says "The ICANN Board has
indicated a strong preference to hold the meetings in Africa, but proposals
will be accepted from any part of the world.")  I imagine issues under
consideration will be membership and new gTLDs, so I'd suggest that
workshops focus on those two topics.  Perhaps half a day on each?  They're
both extremely difficult issues, but three to four hours is a long time --
enough for two full panels on each topic, should you be so inclined, say
with one panel full of "outside experts" (representatives of membership
organizations for membership; technical people, economists, lawyers with
relevant experience in deregulation, etc. talking about new gTLDs) and with
another panel consisting of selected representative stakeholders.  (Although
there are significant risks and challenges in a stakeholder panel...
requires careful planning.)

Re 2, I'm not sure what the issues will be by the summer, but my instinct is
that many of the issues under consideration in March may remain in July.
The At-Large Membership will be in key formative stages -- at the moment I
don't recall the precise timetable, and I failed to find it in a quick
browse through ICANN's site and will surely continue to merit attention from
the Board.  And whatever the status of new gTLDS -- a few added, still being
discussed, etc. -- I imagine the Board will want to hear further input from
stakeholders about their perspective on the new gTLDs.

I'm honestly not sure about the third question.  There are huge benefits to
having local organizers coordinate the workshops -- that much more
opportunity for local hosts to get involved, better use of local experts for
increased representativeness not to mention lower costs, etc.  But, at the
same time, I'd be hesitant to force organizing a workshop on any entity not
already well-versed in the ICANN process.  Organizing our workshop last
month was a trying process even with the advantages of significant
ICANN-related experience and expertise on staff.  It would have been far
harder -- impossible, I suspect! -- had Diane and I and others not already
been deeply involved with the issues ICANN considers.  So I certainly think
this is a key point of concern, and it's something that I'll continue to
think about, but as yet I don't feel like I have a set position one way or
the other... I still see strong arguments on both sides.  I do think,
however, that it's important that some single entity come forward to take on
the challenge -- else, diffuse responsibility prevents any single group from
feeling the pressure to make the workshop happen, I worry that quality and
dedication might suffer as a result of such diffusion of responsibility.
What do others think?


Ben