[Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles
Hartmut Richard Glaser
glaser at cgi.br
Thu Sep 18 19:22:59 UTC 2014
+1 ... I agree with Joe ...!
On 9/18/14 4:13 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote:
> 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...
> 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
>> or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> reluctant could expound a bit?
>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
>>>> 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
>>>> non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement
>>>> Hope this helps
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>> Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the
>>>> 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.
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg