Report on Amsterdam Trip 07 - 08/2/05
ICANN Strategic Plan workshop 7-8 February 2005
Introduction
ICANN had recently prepared their first draft Strategic Plan, late in 2004.
Alllowance had been made up to 28 February for comment and input, following which time the Board would have signed off the plan.
Constituencies felt that consultation had been less than adequate and when the plan was first read, the extent to which new activities were being proposed, and forecast expenditure increases had led to the consultation process being challenged. Marilyn Cade put together a comment paper on the Strategic Plan and then was supported by the gNSO to set up this consultation workshop to which all individuals and constituencies were invited.
There were around 40 attendees at the workshop and a further 10 or so remote participants by telephone and by emailed contributions.
Attendance
It was a good “fit” to attend this workshop as I had already been approved to be in Europe to attend the CENTR L&R and Domain Pulse conferences. The benefit to cost was thus very high, to attend this, not least as I had been part of the strategic planning workgroup for Internetnz.
While at CENTR, I had the opportunity to meet with .Paul Kane and Giovanni Seppia of CENTR to go through the draft ICANN Strategic Plan, and in particular the concerns that INZ has with the plan. There are two consequences of this –
1. The discussion will go back to CENTR and may be included in CENTR feedback on the Strategic Plan.
2. In the event that Paul or Giovanni participate in the Strategic Plan consultation in Amsterdam the views of INZ may be included in their comments. In fact this proved so.
The workshop
I reached Amsterdam the day before the workshop so was able to spend time with Marilyn Cade and Lucy Nichols (GNSO Council Intellectual Property), on Sunday evening to discuss issues and strategy. Marilyn shared concerns that ICANN staff had been critical and suspicious about her role in setting up the consultation. The approach needed to be positive and constructive, and not to be seen to put together an ‘alternative’ strategic plan.
We convened again over breakfast the following morning, with others and including conveners Tony Holmes, Grant Forsyth, Philip Sheppard, Ken Stubbs to agree the approach.
Day one was co-chaired by Philip Sheppard and Ken Stubbs. ICANN. Paul Twomey addressed by phone, Paul Verhoef and Kurt Pritz also gave presentations.
Then presentations were given by others – these are set out in section 17 of the final report from Amsterdam.
I was asked to be a rapporteur for the sessions and assisted in compiling comments from presentations, and ad hoc participants on one of the core sections of the draft Strategic Plan – Competition and Choice. I also gave comments in the open mike session, consistent with what we had discussed in the iac teleconference convened to discuss the plan. These comments are reported in the final consultation report which was mostly prepared by Marilyn Cade and Grant Forsyth.
Day Two was convened by Tony Holmes and Grant Forsyth. They commenced the day with an overview of the elements of a strategic plan and operating plans, and outlining the process for the need for consultation, and how that process should feed into preparing the Strategic Plan and from which ICANN should then create operating plans (business plans). There was general comment that the draft “Strategic Plan” was a blend of these two aspects and needed to be recast into two separate plans.
We rapporteurs met early to prepare feedback reports. We presented these and spoke to them, to those who attended the second day’s events.
At the end of the second day I stayed on after others had left, and settled down with Marilyn Cade and Glen St Gery to start drafting report notes from presentations, comments and the rapporteur reports.
This was an opportunity to ensure that I fully understood the material that would form the basis of the final report, and also to highlight points that to me were an important comment on the draft Strategic Plan’s weaknesses.
Finally I took the opportunity to review the “final” report prepared and circulated around the Strat Plan list, and make some final comments before it was considered ready to submit to ICANN as a finished report.
Summary
The workshop was extremely important – it represents the point at which the whole strategic planning process can be defined for ICANN given constructive inputs from highly talented people from all sections of the Internet community. New Zealand’s high visibility was commented on.
ICANN’s initial suspicion and disregard turned very considerably into engagement and acceptance of the process during the course of the two days – it was quite evident watching this take place. The next phases of refining and recasting the plan will take place in Argentina, and the consultation process will also be defined. New Zealand must have representation at these formative fora.
