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