[Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Thu Sep 18 19:22:59 UTC 2014

+1 ... I agree with Joe ...!

===================================
On 9/18/14 4:13 PM, joseph alhadeff wrote:
> Alissa
>
> 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...
>
> Joe
> 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 
>> people,
>> or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk 
>> with
>> 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 
>> should
>> 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.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>> 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 
>>> focused
>>> 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 
>>> more
>>> reluctant could expound a bit?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 
>>>> the
>>>> non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to 
>>>> engage
>>>> 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 
>>>> information
>>>> 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
>>>> together.
>>>>   Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement
>>>> opportunity!
>>>>   Hope this helps
>>>>   Martin
>>>>       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 
>>>> number
>>>> 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 
>>>> however
>>>> 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 
>>>> with
>>>> communities?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>   Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the 
>>>> open
>>>> 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.
>>>>       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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140918/40a8fcc7/attachment.html>