[Internal-cg] Direct consultation with communities
alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Sep 9 18:58:38 UTC 2014
Since I did not get a chance to provide input on Sept 6 about the topic of
meetings with specific ICANN constituencies at ICANN51, I wanted to
provide some of the motivation for why I thought this would be a good idea.
The reason that I thought that having meetings between some ICG members
and other constituencies at ICANN51 would be useful would be to provide an
opportunity for high-bandwidth exchange of information and Q&A about how
people from those constituencies can become involved in the operational
community processes that are already starting to develop the transition
I will use the IETF process as an example. Of course, we have posted
information about how to participate in the IETF’s IANAPLAN working group
at <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. We can write blog
posts and announcements to point people to this web site, to further
elaborate about how IETF participation works, to point people to the Tao
of the IETF <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>, etc. But for some potential
participants, it will be more effective and efficient to have a meeting
where someone from the IETF could explain the IETF process, and where the
potential participants could ask questions. There are enough important
details about how IETF participation works to fill at least a 10-minute
presentation, I would say, and I imagine that with some audiences that
might yield 10 or more minutes of Q&A.
Of course, we could string together three of these segments (one for each
operational community) and have that comprise an hour or more of our open
session that we already have scheduled for the full ICG at ICANN51. But I
sort of assumed that we would not want to spend quite so much time solely
on the community participation aspect. And there may be specific
participation aspects that would generate more discussion in a side
meeting with a particular constituency. For example, in the IETF, everyone
participates only as an individual. How does that work for government
reps? How has it worked in the past? This might be an interesting
discussion to have specifically with the GAC.
Alternatively, we could try to schedule open conference calls for this
purpose. The advantage of side meetings at ICANN51 is that a large portion
of a particular target audience will definitely be present, whereas with
conference calls we must deal with time zones and scheduling conflicts.
Or, as many have suggested, ICG members could impart this sort of
information to their own constituencies. The downside that I see there is
that we each may not be process experts when it comes to other community
processes. For example, I recently sent an email that reveals all the
things I do not understand about the CWG for names. I would be perfectly
pleased to have a member of the names community come to the IETF and give
a presentation about how to participate in the names process (ay
volunteers? ;)), and I think that would yield a far better outcome than if
I were to try to relay the same information to the IETF community, given
my lack of familiarity with how names processes usually work. So my
thinking here was that we could have one or two people who can speak with
authority about each operational community process have side meetings with
other constituencies at ICANN51. And I see no reason why these meetings
should not be public.
My overall goal is that we as an ICG do everything that we can to make
sure that as broad an audience as possible understands, early on, how to
participate in the development of transition proposals. We can write about
it all we want and talk about it at our own calls and meetings, but often
the most effective way to get the message out is to go directly to the
people we’re trying to reach, and ICANN51 gives us a good opportunity to
do that and have high-bandwidth exchange with potential participants. I
want us to avoid a situation where early 2015 rolls around and we start
hearing that people didn’t know how to participate, so they just send
proposals directly to us.
So my question is: what do people think of focused, public side meetings
at ICANN51 where, say, 4-8 ICG members meet with any ICANN constituency
that is interested in learning more about how to participate in the
operational community processes to develop transition proposals?
On 9/6/14, 9:54 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in
>addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to
>have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting.
>I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to
>reach the broader community.
>I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not
>closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting -
>transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc.
>Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are
>charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group
>as a whole.
>Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
>http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
>See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg