[Internal-cg] Plan for side meetings / ICANN 51

Lynn St.Amour Lynn at lstamour.org
Tue Sep 23 17:41:48 UTC 2014

On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> Third, we have received two explicit requests for side meetings at ICANN
>> 51 — one from ALAC, and one from the GAC. As our discussion on this topic has
>> evolved, I believe we have rough consensus to proceed with scheduling these
>> meetings, provided that certain conditions are met (most of the discussion has
>> focused on the GAC request, but I think some of the arguments that have been
> I haven't seen any response to my argument that the main purpose of the GAC meeting should be to get them to attend the broader public meeting, and that we should encourage them to participate in the operational community processes on equal terms with other stakeholder groups and avoid encouraging any sense that governments are a distinct silo to which special, isolated forms of contact need to be made.  

Hi Milton,

the messages you propose (attend the broader public meeting and encouraging participation in the operational community processes) are very important - and the latter should be standard operating practice in my opinion.  

At the same time, I think it is imperative that we be responsive to (reasonable) requests for additional engagement - assuming they meet several requirements, as I believe already largely agreed on the ICG list.  To reiterate them here from Alissa's summary: "Side meetings are public, minuted, and, to the extent possible, translated."   Many of these meetings are even transcribed; and inclusiveness and broad participation are also goals we are striving for.  

With respect to meeting with the CCWG and the ccNSO, I think many of the ICG would welcome that opportunity.  It was suggested that we make the GAC and ALAC meetings known and make it clear that we are available to meet with other groups as they think necessary.  Do you think we should make a different or additional overture to the CCWG and the ccNSO?


>> There have also been some suggestions that we should try to get meetings scheduled
>> with the CCWG and the ccNSO. 
> To be more accurate, there was an argument that it made a hell of a lot more sense to meet with them than to meet with GAC or ALAC. We should do more than "try". But then again, the general meeting will probably attract a large number of prospective participants in the CCWG process.  Rather than a special meeting, I would encourage us to make a special effort to ensure that some of the members of the charter drafting team and designated representatives from the CCWG attend that meeting and perhaps even share the stage with us. 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list