[Internal-cg] Agenda for Public Session at ICANN 51
paf at frobbit.se
Mon Sep 29 15:17:19 UTC 2014
On 29 sep 2014, at 16:21, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> We will try to get chairs for as many ICG members as possible on stage.
> So of course you will be the first to volunteer to sit in the audience if there are not enough ;-)
More seriously, we have got two different room layout suggestions and there was nothing else than "looks good" from ICG members. I think personally it will work out.
>> The set up is that ICG should be in "listening" mode, although
>> communication should be encouraged to not only be from community
>> to ICG, but community members with each other. It is one of maybe
> Definitely ICG members should not use up this valuable interaction time making long statements. But one cannot 'listen' without interaction. ICG members will need the opportunity to ask clarification questions or to express views that might elicit statements to listen to. The interaction should make full use of the full range of views and stakeholder groups in the ICG. So I hope you and Mohammed are prepared to let the ICG members interact with their constituents.
Yes, and even if I say now "of course", I agree with you that is an important point.
It is though very very important there are not, as you say, long statements from ICG members.
In general, ICG should listen. Right? But to listen we might have to ask clarifying questions.
>> 2. 10:05 15 min - Alissa or whoever ICG designates give an update on
>> the status of ICG, and whatever else ICG decide to present.
> My hope is that this update should focus on understanding the timeline, the RFP, and on the need for the operational communities to develop proposals - and NOT on ICG internal procedures and processes.
Yes, I hope so as well, but what it is have to be decided by the ICG and Alissa. I do not feel I can be prescriptive here of course.
>> 3. 10:20 5 min each - Each group that make themselves known to the
>> ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to
>> the ICG, can present.
> Agree with Kavouss that this needs clarification. I am assuming you mean the operational community reps. Or it I literally "any group that make themselves known" to us?
To be honest, I am happy to change this to whatever you propose.
Should we limit it to "the operational community reps"? Is that ccNSO, GNSO, IETF and RIRs? What about (for example) ccTLDs not members of ccNSO?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg