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

[Tarek Kamel <tkamel@idsc.gov.eg>]

 hello everybody

 Sorry for being somehow late in contributing but I was sick
 for the last week.
 I think it is a good opportunity to host a workshop while having
 the ICANN meeting in africa in march. If the hsoting country will be
 cairo, then I guess I will be able to help with some facilities.
 I think awareness for our african colleagues is a priority whether
 the event will be in Egypt or outside

regards
Tarek


On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Kilnam Chon wrote:

> ben,
> 
> thank you for your informative explanation.
> i have further questions assuming we would carry a similar workshop 
> regularly such as annually if the funding is secured.  we would also have
> the joint tld workshop regularly, possibly every june-july.
> 
> 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?
> 
> chon
> 
> On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 09:53:13PM -0500, Ben Edelman wrote:
> > > 1. is the workshop successful?
> > >
> > > 	in what area does it contribute?
> > > 	what would you do if you have to do it again?
> > 
> > I tend to think the workshop was successful.
> > 
> > In particular, Louie Touton's morning tutorial on the proposed Fall '99
> > Contracts struck me as incredibly important -- for there are precious few
> > opportunities for him to explain either his personal take or the official
> > ICANN position on the issues raised by those contracts.  I think it was
> > important that he had the opportunity to present the complex documents in a
> > forum that allowed for meaningful real-time public comment on a smaller
> > scale than in the subsequent Open meeting, and I'd like to think the
> > Workshop session was at least in part responsible for the changes requested
> > by registrars and ultimately negotiated by parties to the agreements.  For
> > that alone, the workshop was a success in my book.
> > 
> > I was also struck by the afternoon TLD competition panel -- in which I
> > recall some interesting new suggestions from, in particular and surely among
> > others, Mockapetris and Mueller.
> > 
> > I would have liked to see the workshop more effectively demonstrate the
> > integration of remote participants with the physical room.  We did succeed
> > in using videoconferencing to bring in remote participants -- Michael
> > Frooomkin and Tamar Frankel patched in by video this time.  But even more
> > important, at least to me, is verifying that the existing remote comment
> > system is capable of being used more effectively than is currently the
> > case -- or determining modifications to be made to it to make it that much
> > more effective.  Regrettably, we had relatively few remote participants in
> > the Workshop -- only about 40 all day, and they collectively submitted only
> > six comments.  (See
> > <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/archive/index-103199.html> for
> > complete archives.)  As a result, we weren't able to draw any conclusions
> > one way or another about our remote participation system from the
> > Workshop -- but we continue to use it in contexts not related to ICANN, and
> > we hope to make improvements based on experience gained from these outside
> > tests in addition to that from ICANN meetings.
> > 
> > > 2. do we want to have similar workshops in future?
> > >
> > > 	annually if so?
> > > 	what else topics do we want to cover if we do again?
> > > 	who else could do the workshop?
> > 
> > I think there's a lot that can be done within the existing framework of a
> > single day, spent entirely in plenary sessions, combining tutorials with
> > Socratic dialogues.  I imagine there will always be difficult and complex
> > issues that benefit from detailed presentation by appropriate experts, and
> > there will also always be controversial (but more easily understood and more
> > commonly understood) issues for which the Socratic
> > learning-through-discussion format is appropriate and well-suited.
> > 
> > That said, I believe the Socratic method is very much a phenomenon of
> > American law schools -- would be happy to be told I'm wrong, but I haven't
> > heard of its general use elsewhere.  However, the idea of the Socratic
> > method -- talking about a problem, forcing those advocating particular
> > positions to explain why they feel the way they do, expecting that those
> > watching and listening will come to understand the problem and their
> > respective positions that much better as a result of the dialogue among
> > panelists -- seems relatively universal to me, though perhaps that's not the
> > case in some or even many cultures.  Most problematic in the continuation of
> > the Socratic method will be that Socratic moderators -- especially *good*
> > Socratic moderators -- are hard to come by, as I understand it, so perhaps
> > some other format will be chosen by necessity... presumably at the choice of
> > whatever entity organizes the workshop.
> > 
> > What do others on the list think about the model of an outside
> > organization -- one that's been following ICANN and related issues, but not
> > ICANN itself -- hosting and organizing the workshop?  To me, that seems
> > entirely appropriate and for the best -- it makes the workshop feel far less
> > formal, and it provides leeway to discuss topics that, for one reason or
> > another, might otherwise be off-limits in an "official" ICANN-sponsored
> > event.  Ideally a local "host committee" would either organize or
> > "co-organize" the workshop?  Ideally a non-profit of some kind, an entity
> > without a (financial) stake in the outcome, perhaps a university?
> > 
> > 
> > > 3. can we secure necessary funding?
> > >
> > > 	how important/valuable is the workshop when we consider the
> > > 	limited funding and other activities?
> > 
> > I'm not sure -- I could argue either side.  On one hand, it's critical to
> > educate stakeholders on the difficult documents before them, it's arguably
> > necessary to bring in outside experts if ICANN is to succeed in some of the
> > more difficult challenges ahead (i.e. membership), and I think it's also
> > important to encourage, facilitate, and provide a forum for intelligent and
> > well-reasoned discussion and debate.  Yet it won't be cheap to fly experts
> > of diverse geographic origins to workshops held at any point on the globe.
> > We didn't have the resources to do it "right," so we relied primarily on
> > panelists living in California or who could pay their own travel, but that's
> > likely not a sustainable model.
> > 
> > Compared to expenses like producing a "What is ICANN?" pamphlet, improving
> > the various web sites, etc., workshops probably don't stack up that well --
> > they're relatively more expensive and have relatively less benefit per
> > dollar.  But after you've done exhausted all the "obvious" and
> > "exceptionally good value" means of outreach, periodic workshops seem a
> > reasonable approach to me, and I tend to support their continuation.
>