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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Alissa,
Tks for brief
I suggest those who volunteered to endeavor preparing a preliminary draft
for FAQ need to take into accounts comments received from community in
regard with the entire process of transition and RFP .
On the need to have separate meeting with GAC and ALAC, I have already
commented on that in the sense that we need to see who else asking for such
meeting and possibly combine those together .
Still I am not sure of the need for any of these two meetings since I do
not know whether they are seen as briefing session, tutorial or questions
and asnwers meeting
Pls clarify
Regards
Kavouss

2014-09-23 19:41 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at lstamour.org>:

> 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?
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
> >
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140923/7c9301d3/attachment.html>