- Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Plan for side meetings / ICANN 51
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear all, I’d like to summarize where we are with respect to ICG side meetings with specific communities, at ICANN 51 and beyond. First, we have extended our open session with the community by 30 minutes, to 120 minutes. Patrik is working on the agenda for that session. The intent with the extra time is to provide more time for Q&A with the community, and perhaps to address specific questions that may have come up earlier in the ICANN 51 meeting week. Second, there is strong support for the development of an FAQ so that we can have a shared resource when answering questions that may arise in various sessions and venues. I have asked Manal and Martin to develop a first draft of the FAQ and my hope is that we can book time on our October 1 call to discuss and refine it. There is limited time between now and ICANN 51, so I think the goal here should not be perfection, but to have talking points that we find useful as a group. To that point, whether we formally “publish” the FAQ on our web site or just use the draft for our own purposes at the meeting can be decided at some future time — the goal for now should be to have an internal resource. Also, there has been some discussion about the inclusion of questions/answers concerning the process to be followed after we receive proposals. I will send a separate email about that. 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 given from a variety of people posting to the list and on the call extend to ALAC and other groups as well). These conditions have been mentioned (to some extent I’m paraphrasing Patrik) and I think we should make use of them: (a) Side meetings are public, minuted, and, to the extent possible, translated. (These conditions will be met by the ALAC and GAC arrangements.) (b) We announce that we are accepting meeting invitations from interested parties (at ICANN 51 and beyond) and that we will respond if requests seem justified and resources permit. (c) For the round of meetings at ICANN 51 focused on how to participate in operational community processes, we ensure that at least one ICG member each from protocol parameters, numbers, gTLDs, and ccTLDs are available to join the meetings, and we welcome participation from as many other ICG members whose schedules can accommodate the meetings. In general, we assume for side meetings that having a small group of us represent the ICG is fine, while having a larger subset of us participate is preferred. My plan is to proceed with the tasks necessary to fulfill the conditions above — responding to ALAC and GAC about scheduling, getting an announcement posted, and figuring out who will be available to attend the meetings. There have also been some suggestions that we should try to get meetings scheduled with the CCWG and the ccNSO. If you are participating in those groups, believe that a meeting would be beneficial, and can help with scheduling, please make that known on the list and I will follow up with you. Thanks, Alissa

5 6

Re: [Internal-cg] Social gathering at ICANN 51
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

On 9/22/14, 2:11 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >Mohamed, Patrik and I were thinking it might be nice to set aside some >time for ICG members to gather socially during ICANN 51, outside of our >scheduled meeting time. We’d like to propose a gathering in the evening on >Thursday, October 16 (the night before our face-to-face meeting). >Questions for the group: > >Are you in favor of a social gathering? > >Would you prefer that we each cover our own costs individually, or that >ICANN cover the whole group’s costs (budget permitting)? Just to be clear — I imagine the social gathering will consist of drink and/or food, which is where the costs would come from. Alissa > >Feel free to respond to me off-list for privacy reasons if you’d prefer, >on-list otherwise. > >Thanks, >Alissa > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

4 3

Agenda of the 4th f2f ICG Meeting
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear Alissa, Dear Vice chairs Please advise 1.what are the items to be placed on 17 Octobre,the 4th f2f ICG meeting 2. What are the arrangements for the days before that 3. Does any one start to collect FAQ items to get it circulated for better coordination. 4. I am concerned about ICANN Accountability Governance Working Group.As you know THE APPROACH INITIALLY TAKEN WAS CHANGED. The composition is changed and the oversight is also changed Regards Kavouss

2 2

ICANN 51
by WUKnoben Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

All, ICANN has now posted the full schedule for ICANN 51 in LA, see http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule-full Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Next call Oct 1 04:00-05:00 UTC
by Patrik Fältström Sept. 22, 2014

Sept. 22, 2014

All, Next call will be Wednesday, 1 October 2014 from 04:00-05:00 UTC. It is confirmed that translation to all languages will be possible. Support Staff will send out call details. Regards, Patrik Fältström

4 3

Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles
by Joe Alhadeff Sept. 22, 2014

Sept. 22, 2014

Alissa: We may need to expand how we address questions related to proposal submissions and the process of developing the unified proposal as well as the comment processes that will be available. I would assume most questions for us will be on those topics... Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: alissa(a)cooperw.in To: joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com, internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:45:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles Hi Joe, Agreed. I’m happy to develop talking points about how the IETF process works and how people can engage in the protocol parameters transition proposal development process, and share those with this group. I would still expect an experienced IETF participant to be the person speaking about IETF process, though. For questions about the rest of the transition process, I think we have a good starting point with the slides you produced for the IGF, our charter, the timeline, and the RFP — we could distill those into a set of talking points. Alissa On 9/18/14, 12:13 PM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> 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(a)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(a)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(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff >>>> Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 >>>> To: internal-cg(a)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(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 2

Extended session in Los Angeles
by Patrik Fältström Sept. 19, 2014

Sept. 19, 2014

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

13 21

Q&A Secretariat RfP
by Adiel Akplogan Sept. 19, 2014

Sept. 19, 2014

Hello all, Find attached the list of questions received so far from potential respondents to the Secretariat RfP, and the answers we are proposing for each of them. The idea is to send out this set of Q&A to all the respondents even before the deadline we have given in the RfP. Let us know if there are any further comment. thanks. - a.

8 9

Archives: Call # 4 -
by Alice Jansen Sept. 19, 2014

Sept. 19, 2014

Dear ICG members, Below you will find links to call #4 archives (see - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-archives-2014-07-31-en) Agenda - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/agenda-icg-17sep14-en.pdf Chat transcript - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/transcript-chat-icg-17sep14-en.… Recording EN - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-en.mp3 Recording FR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-fr.mp3 Recording ES - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-es.mp3 Recording RU - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-ru.mp3 Recording PT - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-pt.mp3 Recording ZH - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-zh.mp3 Recording AR - http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-ar.mp3<http://audio.icann.org/meetings/coordination-group/icg-17sep14-zh.mp3> Transcripts will be posted as soon as available. Thanks Best Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:21 AM To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Call # 4 - Roll call Dear ICG Members, Please flag any inconsistencies you may notice (off list). We will share call archives as soon as available. Thanks! Best regards Alice ICG Members: Adiel Akplogan (NRO) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC-BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Jandyr Dos Santos (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Heather Dryden (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Russ Housley (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Michael Niebel (GAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Paul Wilson (NRO) Liaisons: Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison Expert) Kuo-Wei Wu (Board Liaison) Apologies - ICG: James Bladel (GNSO) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Support: Alice Jansen Hillary Jett Ergys Ramaj Apologies - Support: Samantha Dickinson (Support) Theresa Swinehart (ICANN)

2 2

Re: [Internal-cg] Final decision making document
by Alice Jansen Sept. 19, 2014

Sept. 19, 2014

Dear ICG Members, The guidelines may be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-guidelines-decision-making-… An announcement was posted on the ICANN website yesterday - see: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-09-18-en The guidelines are also available on your activities page at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-activities-2014-07-18-en Best regards Alice From: Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:30 AM To: ICG <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Final decision making document Attached and in Dropbox. Alice, please post the PDF to the web site. Thanks, Alissa

1 0