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@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@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@icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04
To: internal-cg@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
  _______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg