[Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Thu Sep 18 18:58:53 UTC 2014

I tend to agree with Milton on this, Governments are a co-equal stakeholder in this process, and we should not create (or fuel) any perceptions of separate engagement.



From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2014 at 10:53
To: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>>, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>>, ICG List <internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

I personally think that a special meeting with the GAC is not such a great idea. It caters to their persistent sense of being separate and apart, and the false idea that governments have a separate role in the MS process than other stakeholders. Not to be too blunt, but one gets tired of having to spoon feed them when it is in fact their job to keep up with this stuff. Ideally, GAC members should be encouraged to go to the open meeting and ask questions like anyone else. So in my mind, the purpose of a GAC meeting _should_ be primarily to let them know that the other meeting is happening and urging them to join the rest of the community in attending it.

If there is any group that we really need to make special efforts to reach out to, imho, it would be the leaders and prospective members of the CCWG and the ccNSO, who will actually have to develop a proposal.


From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:57 AM
To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles


The reason I am concerned about other communities, is not that they don't have legitimate questions or issues, but that the answers to their questions are useful to other communities - GAC is a bit unique there.  I know, for example, that business questions about how to participate are useful to be heard by the operational communities because they are part of the answer to the question as early participation in proposal development should be accomplished through participation in the operational proposal development processes.  I would assume the same would be true for a number of ALAC questions - I am sure that they would be relevant to business stakeholders...

Will the Thursday forum be open to those no part of the ICANN meeting?  I am also concerned if we only provide such outreach opportunities on the margin of ICANN events we will be leaving out a broad range of stakeholders who may most need interaction with us on how to participate.  I am very sensitive to stakeholders who are concerned with the impression or potential that insiders of the ICANN processes have a privileged role or ability to influence the process...


On 9/18/2014 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle 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


From:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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?


On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:


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.



Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140918/4a529295/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list