[Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?

[Drazek, Keith]

+1 in support of Patrick's recommendation.

Keith

On Aug 1, 2014, at 2:06 PM, "Jon Nevett" <jon at donuts.co> wrote:

> Agree with Patrik on structure and length.  Best, Jon
> 
> 
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 1 aug 2014, at 03:27, jari.arkko at piuha.net wrote:
>> 
>>> We should have a session.
>>> 
>>> I think 60 minutes is enough for the CG part.
>>> 
>>> But I'm wondering if there should also be "this is what is happening at
>>> IETF (etc)"? Or is it too early? Maybe not, we know the process and it is
>>> ongoing even if the result is not there yet...
>> 
>> We have I think three possible contents for an ICG session:
>> 
>> 1. ICG present where we are, what we will do next.
>> 
>> 2. Feedback from community to ICG (including Q&A), i.e. "open mike"
>> 
>> 3. "Invitation" to other groups to come and present what is happening (IETF, RIRs, GNSO, ccNSO etc)
>> 
>> To some degree I think we need all three.
>> 
>> It is VERY important we do not loose anyone, so taking for granted the community know where we are is dangerous. Specifically given the "misunderstandings" I see on various mailing lists. So 1 is important.
>> 
>> I also think 2 is important. I.e. "why not"?
>> 
>> 3 might also be important to cross feed information from these groups to the community (not so much to ICG).
>> 
>> Proposal:
>> 
>> 1: 15 min
>> 3: 10 min for each group that want to present
>> 2: Whatever is left of 90 minutes
>> 
>>  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