Re: [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t see the need for this at all.
I see it as a potential diversion from our substantive work and a time-consuming move into PR. As another matter, we’ve just detached our Secretariat from ICANN and now we get deeply enmeshed into their communications team?
Its shouldn't consume ICG time as a small group or a volunteer(s) can work on it and present the final outcome to ICG. PR is not part of our new secretariat mandate. ICANN still provides ICG with support ( logistics, travel, ...etc ), not sure why PR could not be part of that as long the ICG determines the content of such out-reach messages and approve the end product.
We might need some kind of better public outreach when we have assembled three finalized proposals and we are seeking public comment. Until then, I do not understand the need. Martin mentioned “registries who are not involved in the ICANN process.” It is a clearly defined part of this process that it is the task of the operational communities, in this case names, to involve all relevant groups in the development of the proposal. It is not our job to do so. So perhaps ICANN PR can offer their services to the CWG.
Agree, we will need outreach when we assemble the final proposal but we also need it through the evaluation process, better to plan/start early while we have less pressure now.
I am shaking my head in disbelief about this, really. Simple explanations of the role of the ICG are not the primary problem the transition faces right now. It is not even a secondary problem, or a tertiary one. Let’s be realistic. The problem has to do with achieving consensus among a complex set of interest groups around management of the names root. The idea that we are going to advance that process with slick infographics about us strikes me as seriously misguided, almost narcissistic.
I know and others as well clearly the challenges ahead of us as ICG, the current names debate and challenges is clear indication of task complexity in the final proposal assembly. That's being said, its our role to ensure that our processes and procedures are transparent and clear to the wider internet community, this is the objective Not resolving ICG issues complexity by a slick infograph !!
--MM
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mohamed El Bashir *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:15 PM *To:* ICANN Internal *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
Dear All,
The Chairs had 2 meetings with ICANN's communications team in Los Angeles and Singapore, they offered to support ICG in planning and developingneed inforgraphics, animation videos and media messages .
As ICG progressing in the proposal evaluations it might be useful to explain some of our important processes to public in clear visual presentation, if we decided to accept ICANN support in this, its communications team will develop those infographs based on ICG guidance, review and approval. the infograhs and other produced media can be published in ICG web site.
Please advice if we can proceed on this approach and develop some infographs with ICANN support.
If yes, what issues/topics you think we should focus on ( e.g proposals evaluation/assessment process, the time line, .....etc ).
Kind Regards,
Mohamed
I would agree on a slow preparation related to our exercise of socializing the final draft - that will require effort and forethought. PR in the interim should be limited to thinking of sending our existing updates through other channels; if ICANN has suggestions fine, but this does not rise to any level of formality or partnership.... On 3/5/2015 7:06 AM, Mohamed El Bashir wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t see the need for this at all.
I see it as a potential diversion from our substantive work and a time-consuming move into PR. As another matter, we’ve just detached our Secretariat from ICANN and now we get deeply enmeshed into their communications team?
Its shouldn't consume ICG time as a small group or a volunteer(s) can work on it and present the final outcome to ICG. PR is not part of our new secretariat mandate.
ICANN still provides ICG with support ( logistics, travel, ...etc ), not sure why PR could not be part of that as long the ICG determines the content of such out-reach messages and approve the end product.
We might need some kind of better public outreach when we have assembled three finalized proposals and we are seeking public comment. Until then, I do not understand the need. Martin mentioned “registries who are not involved in the ICANN process.” It is a clearly defined part of this process that it is the task of the operational communities, in this case names, to involve all relevant groups in the development of the proposal. It is not our job to do so. So perhaps ICANN PR can offer their services to the CWG.
Agree, we will need outreach when we assemble the final proposal but we also need it through the evaluation process, better to plan/start early while we have less pressure now.
I am shaking my head in disbelief about this, really. Simple explanations of the role of the ICG are not the primary problem the transition faces right now. It is not even a secondary problem, or a tertiary one. Let’s be realistic. The problem has to do with achieving consensus among a complex set of interest groups around management of the names root. The idea that we are going to advance that process with slick infographics about us strikes me as seriously misguided, almost narcissistic.
I know and others as well clearly the challenges ahead of us as ICG, the current names debate and challenges is clear indication of task complexity in the final proposal assembly. That's being said, its our role to ensure that our processes and procedures are transparent and clear to the wider internet community, this is the objective Not resolving ICG issues complexity by a slick infograph !!
--MM
*From:*internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mohamed El Bashir *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2015 3:15 PM *To:* ICANN Internal *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages
Dear All,
The Chairs had 2 meetings with ICANN's communications team in Los Angeles and Singapore, they offered to support ICG in planning and developingneed inforgraphics, animation videos and media messages .
As ICG progressing in the proposal evaluations it might be useful to explain some of our important processes to public in clear visual presentation, if we decided to accept ICANN support in this, its communications team will develop those infographs based on ICG guidance, review and approval. the infograhs and other produced media can be published in ICG web site.
Please advice if we can proceed on this approach and develop some infographs with ICANN support.
If yes, what issues/topics you think we should focus on ( e.g proposals evaluation/assessment process, the time line, .....etc ).
Kind Regards,
Mohamed
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Agree, we will need outreach when we assemble the final proposal but we also need it through the evaluation process, better to plan/start early while we have less pressure now. Help me to understand how our current evaluation work, or any foreseeable evaluation work, relies on forms of “outreach” that would be facilitated by infographics.
Isn’t it so that when we have assembled the proposal and go to consultation we already have an informed audience who might pay attention? Otherwise we will be going out to the same old people. I keep hearing about how we are failing to reach beyond our known communities. This is probably more an issue for ccTLDs than for gTLDs (ccTLDs do not absolutely need to attend ICANN meetings) and for small operators than large (because they are focussed on their core business and local community). But we still have an overall responsibility for an open process, and it is hardly open if no one knows about it or does not understand it. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 05 March 2015 16:56 To: Mohamed El Bashir Cc: ICANN Internal Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG future awareness/Infographics/Media messages Agree, we will need outreach when we assemble the final proposal but we also need it through the evaluation process, better to plan/start early while we have less pressure now. Help me to understand how our current evaluation work, or any foreseeable evaluation work, relies on forms of “outreach” that would be facilitated by infographics.
participants (4)
-
joseph alhadeff
-
Martin Boyle
-
Milton L Mueller
-
Mohamed El Bashir