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

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

 yes Ben

 these are important issues as you have listed them. 
 I still consider awareness and orientation for our african colleagues
 especially if the meeting will be in africa as priority one.
 If there will be a Networking Country Workshop coupled with inet2000
 then we need another awarenss workshop about ICANN for the attendees
 of this workshop in Oklahoma as well.

regards
Tarek


On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:

> 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
> 
>