[Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Mon Sep 22 13:32:58 UTC 2014 

Just so we do not lose what I saw as an important point from Joe:  I think we certainly need to be able to discuss "proposal submissions and the process of developing the unified proposal":  if I were in a team developing a proposal, I'd see these as key information.

In particular, I guess I'd like to be clear about the criteria that I need to address and how these will be evaluated.  It is all there in the RfP, but is it worth (or necessary for) a collective eye looking at each of the requirements to consider how we will know if a criterion has been met?

MB



-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Joe Alhadeff
Sent: 18 September 2014 22:00
To: alissa at cooperw.in
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Alissa:

We may need to expand how we address questions related to proposal submissions and the process of developing the unified proposal as well as the comment processes that will be available.  I would assume most questions for us will be on those topics...

Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: alissa at cooperw.in
To: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com, internal-cg at icann.org
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:45:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Hi Joe,

Agreed.

I’m happy to develop talking points about how the IETF process works and how people can engage in the protocol parameters transition proposal development process, and share those with this group. I would still expect an experienced IETF participant to be the person speaking about IETF process, though. 

For questions about the rest of the transition process, I think we have a good starting point with the slides you produced for the IGF, our charter, the timeline, and the RFP — we could distill those into a set of talking points.

Alissa

On 9/18/14, 12:13 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


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list