[Internal-cg] Possible ICG-GAC meeting in Los Angeles

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
First of all, we need to understand the necessity of that meeting
If such a necessity is supported then  ,should we not discuss why such a
exclusive meeting of ICG is only required with GAC and not with other
constituency
We shoals be fair and demonstrate that we are fair.
>From the moment that we are in ICG we should act collectively  and without
any discrimination with all 13 Communities . due to the fact that we ,the
entire ICG representing the entire community and should treat them fairly
and equally
IGC should meet with ant of the 13 community , if they so wish and not
differentiate GAC out of them
Regards
K.ARASTEH


2014-09-05 17:47 GMT+02:00 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>:

> I’m supportive of such meetings. As with everything else, high-bandwidth
> face-to-face interactions help people understand each other better.
>
> Each case has to be looked separately, however. What is that a discussion
> with *that* group should accomplish, where are we/they in the process, etc.
> As an example, my quick reaction is that it would be useful to spend some
> time with both the GAC and the ALAC on how their members can get involved
> in the communities’ processes and what those processes are currently doing.
> At least my feeling is that such explanations would help get more of the
> members involved in the communities work and provide early feedback. But
> I’m not a member in those groups, so Heather, J-J, etc. can probably give
> you a more accurate picture of what might be useful.
>
> With gTLD and ccTLD and CWG maybe the answer is different.
>
> For comparison, what we did at the IETF in end of July was that Alissa
> gave an explanation of the overall transition effort, explained what the
> ICG is and what expectations there are for the IETF. Since then we’ve
> brought the draft RFP into our community, and the community is now busy
> working on an actual proposal. The first draft of that proposal is out. I
> think the IETF’s questions about this topic are more in the proposal
> itself, and something we can work on ourselves, and at the moment there’d
> be little need for interaction with ICG. Except perhaps when there are
> unclear items in the RFP. There has been at least one question mark, but I
> plan to bring that up on the ICG mailing list separately. Later, when we
> get a little bit further with our proposal, there’s probably more need for
> interaction again.
>
> Jari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140905/aee2fae8/attachment.html>