[Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Fri Sep 19 06:29:16 UTC 2014

+1 with Joe.

Anyone from the ICG formally meeting other stakeholder group has to clearly state the hat he/she is wearing. For me, this discussion (and the meetings we are talking about here) is about the ICG and not what the various stakeholder group we represent individually are/will_be doing. For talking to stakeholders about what a specific (operational) group is doing, we don’t need ICG approval and we should avoid doing that in the context of the ICG. So yes, it will be advisable for any subset of the ICG members formally meeting other groups to talk about the ICG process to have talking points that represent the whole ICG view.

- a.

On Sep 18, 2014, at 23:13 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Alissa
> 
> If we are going to have subsets of ICG members answering questions and engaging in conversations related to proposal development then we had better develop some talking points because we need to be consistent across our conversations...
> 
> Joe
> On 9/18/2014 2:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> I agree with Lynn’s point below about responsibility — I actually think
>> one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter
>> states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage
>> in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of
>> that, in my opinion.
>> 
>> Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive
>> list of groups that we meet with. We (and “we” can mean one or two people,
>> or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with
>> any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If
>> that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or
>> having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as
>> we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload,
>> just as we’ve been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on,
>> there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very
>> capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our
>> IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage
>> them as well.
>> 
>> We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC
>> because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said “I’d like to
>> hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups —
>> ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? — to see if they want to talk, we should
>> do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if
>> people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.
>> 
>> I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings
>> will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So
>> there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone
>> from attending or tuning in.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at lstamour.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor
>>> are they necessarily working to the ones we are.   I believe we have a
>>> responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and
>>> understandable as possible.  In other words, to do whatever we can to
>>> minimize barriers to participation or support.  Dialogue in more focused
>>> groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11
>>> group on "consensus".
>>> 
>>> I strongly support Martin and Manal's points.  Maybe those that are more
>>> reluctant could expound a bit?
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Lynn
>>> 
>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140919/226a02d5/signature.asc>