[Internal-cg] Possible ICG-GAC meeting in Los Angeles

[Jari Arkko]

I’m supportive of such meetings. As with everything else, high-bandwidth face-to-face interactions help people understand each other better.

Each case has to be looked separately, however. What is that a discussion with *that* group should accomplish, where are we/they in the process, etc. As an example, my quick reaction is that it would be useful to spend some time with both the GAC and the ALAC on how their members can get involved in the communities’ processes and what those processes are currently doing. At least my feeling is that such explanations would help get more of the members involved in the communities work and provide early feedback. But I’m not a member in those groups, so Heather, J-J, etc. can probably give you a more accurate picture of what might be useful.

With gTLD and ccTLD and CWG maybe the answer is different.

For comparison, what we did at the IETF in end of July was that Alissa gave an explanation of the overall transition effort, explained what the ICG is and what expectations there are for the IETF. Since then we’ve brought the draft RFP into our community, and the community is now busy working on an actual proposal. The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF’s questions about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can work on ourselves, and at the moment there’d be little need for interaction with ICG. Except perhaps when there are unclear items in the RFP. There has been at least one question mark, but I plan to bring that up on the ICG mailing list separately. Later, when we get a little bit further with our proposal, there’s probably more need for interaction again.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140905/1842ddbf/signature.asc>