" <internal-cg@icann.org> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) Is the archive available to everyone? Don't we think that is a good idea for transparency reasons? If people have comments, to what entry point do they send comments? We can not risk having people say this is not transparent. I want to ensure we are. Patrik - on vacation...but thinking
My understanding is that the internal-cg list is temporary and not archived at least not yet. Our problem is that we are in the startup phase so not all of the setup and decisions have been made. Yet. I would certainly personally want to see an archived open list. Jari
On 16 jul 2014, at 23:25, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
My understanding is that the internal-cg list is temporary and not archived at least not yet. Our problem is that we are in the startup phase so not all of the setup and decisions have been made. Yet. I would certainly personally want to see an archived open list.
I agree. I just hope it is archived (or we have to do that manually) IF the group in London for example come to the conclusion that content of this list should be made public. So, for the process related issues that must be discussed in London my short list include: - How do people within CG communicate with each other? - How are f2f and otherwise non-written material made public? - How is the data from that internal communication made public? - How are summarize created (and made public) to make people easier aware of what is going on? - How is input to the CG gathered, summarized and acted upon (I think we need a "list of actions")? I also on this list see people say "representing" when talking about individuals on CG. That bothers me a bit. I do understand what people talk about, but I definitely want to see more talk about us individuals be appointed by the respective groups, forwarding of course the view points of those groups, but that we in the majority of the cases are forced to work together to create a good outcome. I.e. "representing our respective communities" is something that happens as little as possible. This because I want individuals to be able to work creatively and effectively while of course I understand the various groups at the same time has sent red line definitions with their representatives. Patrik
Patrick: I think that representing is perhaps an overly formal word for beings there on behalf of a collection of interests. In my case that will mean going back to that consistency of interest to help form my inputs and participation in the group. Joe PS you're not doing a great job of being on vacation :-) Sent from my iPad
On Jul 17, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 16 jul 2014, at 23:25, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
My understanding is that the internal-cg list is temporary and not archived at least not yet. Our problem is that we are in the startup phase so not all of the setup and decisions have been made. Yet. I would certainly personally want to see an archived open list.
I agree. I just hope it is archived (or we have to do that manually) IF the group in London for example come to the conclusion that content of this list should be made public.
So, for the process related issues that must be discussed in London my short list include:
- How do people within CG communicate with each other?
- How are f2f and otherwise non-written material made public?
- How is the data from that internal communication made public?
- How are summarize created (and made public) to make people easier aware of what is going on?
- How is input to the CG gathered, summarized and acted upon (I think we need a "list of actions")?
I also on this list see people say "representing" when talking about individuals on CG.
That bothers me a bit.
I do understand what people talk about, but I definitely want to see more talk about us individuals be appointed by the respective groups, forwarding of course the view points of those groups, but that we in the majority of the cases are forced to work together to create a good outcome. I.e. "representing our respective communities" is something that happens as little as possible.
This because I want individuals to be able to work creatively and effectively while of course I understand the various groups at the same time has sent red line definitions with their representatives.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 17 jul 2014, at 08:25, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Patrick:
I think that representing is perhaps an overly formal word for beings there on behalf of a collection of interests. In my case that will mean going back to that consistency of interest to help form my inputs and participation in the group.
Joe
PS you're not doing a great job of being on vacation :-)
I know, but this is an important day for the CG, and I decided to spend an hour in the morning of my vacation to help/disturb you as much as I could. Patrik
participants (3)
-
Jari Arkko -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Patrik Fältström