[Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
Mohamed El Bashir
mbashir at mbash.net
Thu Mar 5 12:06:12 UTC 2015
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, but I don’t see the need for this at all.
> I see it as a potential diversion from our substantive work and a
> time-consuming move into PR. As another matter, we’ve just detached our
> Secretariat from ICANN and now we get deeply enmeshed into their
> communications team?
Its shouldn't consume ICG time as a small group or a volunteer(s) can work
on it and present the final outcome to ICG. PR is not part of our new
ICANN still provides ICG with support ( logistics, travel, ...etc ), not
sure why PR could not be part of that as long the ICG determines the
content of such out-reach messages and approve the end product.
> We might need some kind of better public outreach when we have assembled
> three finalized proposals and we are seeking public comment. Until then, I
> do not understand the need. Martin mentioned “registries who are not
> involved in the ICANN process.” It is a clearly defined part of this
> process that it is the task of the operational communities, in this case
> names, to involve all relevant groups in the development of the proposal.
> It is not our job to do so. So perhaps ICANN PR can offer their services to
> the CWG.
Agree, we will need outreach when we assemble the final proposal but we
also need it through the evaluation process, better to plan/start early
while we have less pressure now.
> I am shaking my head in disbelief about this, really. Simple explanations
> of the role of the ICG are not the primary problem the transition faces
> right now. It is not even a secondary problem, or a tertiary one. Let’s be
> realistic. The problem has to do with achieving consensus among a complex
> set of interest groups around management of the names root. The idea that
> we are going to advance that process with slick infographics about us
> strikes me as seriously misguided, almost narcissistic.
I know and others as well clearly the challenges ahead of us as ICG, the
current names debate and challenges is clear indication of task complexity
in the final proposal assembly.
That's being said, its our role to ensure that our processes and procedures
are transparent and clear to the wider internet community, this is the
objective Not resolving ICG issues complexity by a slick infograph !!
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mohamed El Bashir
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:15 PM
> *To:* ICANN Internal
> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
> Dear All,
> The Chairs had 2 meetings with ICANN's communications team in Los Angeles
> and Singapore, they offered to support ICG in planning and developingneed
> inforgraphics, animation videos and media messages .
> As ICG progressing in the proposal evaluations it might be useful to
> explain some of our important processes to public in clear visual
> presentation, if we decided to accept ICANN support in this, its
> communications team will develop those infographs based on ICG guidance,
> review and approval. the infograhs and other produced media can be
> published in ICG web site.
> Please advice if we can proceed on this approach and develop some
> infographs with ICANN support.
> If yes, what issues/topics you think we should focus on ( e.g proposals
> evaluation/assessment process, the time line, .....etc ).
> Kind Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg