[Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

[Adiel Akplogan]

I was one of those who raised concern yesterday about having theses separates focussed sessions. After hearing Header’s explanation and reading Manal’s mail I better understand the rational of GAC’s request and will support the meeting with them. My concern (and something we all need to think through) is how we (a) prepare ourselves to sustainably do the same if request comes from other specific groups in case we received more? (b) If we are not able to meet such expectation, we then have to have a well crafted message to explain why we have accepted the invitation from the GAC and will not be able to extend this to everyone. 

In short either we organise ourselves to attend to requests from any specific group (from ICANN ecosystem or not), or we go with GAC’s only and clearly present it as exceptional case supported by argument such as Header and Manal’s points. 

By the way it will be good to have the note/recording from the the meeting with GAC published on our web site if we go for the meeting.

- a.

On Sep 18, 2014, at 15:57 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Martin:
> 
> The reason I am concerned about other communities, is not that they don't have legitimate questions or issues, but that the answers to their questions are useful to other communities - GAC is a bit unique there.  I know, for example, that business questions about how to participate are useful to be heard by the operational communities because they are part of the answer to the question as early participation in proposal development should be accomplished through participation in the operational proposal development processes.  I would assume the same would be true for a number of ALAC questions - I am sure that they would be relevant to business stakeholders...  
> 
> Will the Thursday forum be open to those no part of the ICANN meeting?  I am also concerned if we only provide such outreach opportunities on the margin of ICANN events we will be leaving out a broad range of stakeholders who may most need interaction with us on how to participate.  I am very sensitive to stakeholders who are concerned with the impression or potential that insiders of the ICANN processes have a privileged role or ability to influence the process...
> 
> Joe
> 
>   
> On 9/18/2014 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
>> Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me:  I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes.  I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement).  So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape.
>>  
>> So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.
>>  
>> I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG.  But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.
>>  
>> There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group.  I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.
>>  
>> Then we have the post RfP discussions:  surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie.  We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together. 
>>  
>> Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity!
>>  
>> Hope this helps
>>  
>> Martin
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>> Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04
>> To: internal-cg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles
>>  
>> Patrik, colleagues:
>> 
>> Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC...  As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.  
>> 
>> On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> All,
>>  
>> Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.
>>  
>> The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):
>>  
>> Thursday, 16 October.
>> Start time: 10:00
>> End time: 12:00
>>  
>> I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.
>>  
>>    Patrik
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140918/3bf85f93/signature.asc>