Plan for side meetings / ICANN 51
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
Are the formal dates and times for both ALAC and GAC meetings? On 9/22/2014 5:01 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 9/22/14, 2:16 PM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Are the formal dates and times for both ALAC and GAC meetings?
These are the tentative but likely times: ALAC - Tuesday, Oct 14, 15:45-16:45 PT GAC - Wednesday, Oct 15, 10:30-11:30 PT Alissa
On 9/22/2014 5:01 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-----Original Message----- 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
I haven't seen any response to my argument that the main purpose of the GAC meeting should be to get them to attend the broader public meeting, and that we should encourage them to participate in the operational community processes on equal terms with other stakeholder groups and avoid encouraging any sense that governments are a distinct silo to which special, isolated forms of contact need to be made.
There have also been some suggestions that we should try to get meetings scheduled with the CCWG and the ccNSO.
To be more accurate, there was an argument that it made a hell of a lot more sense to meet with them than to meet with GAC or ALAC. We should do more than "try". But then again, the general meeting will probably attract a large number of prospective participants in the CCWG process. Rather than a special meeting, I would encourage us to make a special effort to ensure that some of the members of the charter drafting team and designated representatives from the CCWG attend that meeting and perhaps even share the stage with us.
On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- 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
I haven't seen any response to my argument that the main purpose of the GAC meeting should be to get them to attend the broader public meeting, and that we should encourage them to participate in the operational community processes on equal terms with other stakeholder groups and avoid encouraging any sense that governments are a distinct silo to which special, isolated forms of contact need to be made.
Hi Milton, the messages you propose (attend the broader public meeting and encouraging participation in the operational community processes) are very important - and the latter should be standard operating practice in my opinion. At the same time, I think it is imperative that we be responsive to (reasonable) requests for additional engagement - assuming they meet several requirements, as I believe already largely agreed on the ICG list. To reiterate them here from Alissa's summary: "Side meetings are public, minuted, and, to the extent possible, translated." Many of these meetings are even transcribed; and inclusiveness and broad participation are also goals we are striving for. With respect to meeting with the CCWG and the ccNSO, I think many of the ICG would welcome that opportunity. It was suggested that we make the GAC and ALAC meetings known and make it clear that we are available to meet with other groups as they think necessary. Do you think we should make a different or additional overture to the CCWG and the ccNSO? Best, Lynn
There have also been some suggestions that we should try to get meetings scheduled with the CCWG and the ccNSO.
To be more accurate, there was an argument that it made a hell of a lot more sense to meet with them than to meet with GAC or ALAC. We should do more than "try". But then again, the general meeting will probably attract a large number of prospective participants in the CCWG process. Rather than a special meeting, I would encourage us to make a special effort to ensure that some of the members of the charter drafting team and designated representatives from the CCWG attend that meeting and perhaps even share the stage with us.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, Tks for brief I suggest those who volunteered to endeavor preparing a preliminary draft for FAQ need to take into accounts comments received from community in regard with the entire process of transition and RFP . On the need to have separate meeting with GAC and ALAC, I have already commented on that in the sense that we need to see who else asking for such meeting and possibly combine those together . Still I am not sure of the need for any of these two meetings since I do not know whether they are seen as briefing session, tutorial or questions and asnwers meeting Pls clarify Regards Kavouss 2014-09-23 19:41 GMT+02:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org>:
On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- 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
I haven't seen any response to my argument that the main purpose of the GAC meeting should be to get them to attend the broader public meeting, and that we should encourage them to participate in the operational community processes on equal terms with other stakeholder groups and avoid encouraging any sense that governments are a distinct silo to which special, isolated forms of contact need to be made.
Hi Milton,
the messages you propose (attend the broader public meeting and encouraging participation in the operational community processes) are very important - and the latter should be standard operating practice in my opinion.
At the same time, I think it is imperative that we be responsive to (reasonable) requests for additional engagement - assuming they meet several requirements, as I believe already largely agreed on the ICG list. To reiterate them here from Alissa's summary: "Side meetings are public, minuted, and, to the extent possible, translated." Many of these meetings are even transcribed; and inclusiveness and broad participation are also goals we are striving for.
With respect to meeting with the CCWG and the ccNSO, I think many of the ICG would welcome that opportunity. It was suggested that we make the GAC and ALAC meetings known and make it clear that we are available to meet with other groups as they think necessary. Do you think we should make a different or additional overture to the CCWG and the ccNSO?
Best, Lynn
There have also been some suggestions that we should try to get
meetings scheduled
with the CCWG and the ccNSO.
To be more accurate, there was an argument that it made a hell of a lot more sense to meet with them than to meet with GAC or ALAC. We should do more than "try". But then again, the general meeting will probably attract a large number of prospective participants in the CCWG process. Rather than a special meeting, I would encourage us to make a special effort to ensure that some of the members of the charter drafting team and designated representatives from the CCWG attend that meeting and perhaps even share the stage with us.
_______________________________________________ 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
-----Original Message----- From: Lynn St.Amour [mailto:Lynn@LStAmour.org]
With respect to meeting with the CCWG and the ccNSO, I think many of the ICG would welcome that opportunity. It was suggested that we make the GAC and ALAC meetings known and make it clear that we are available to meet with other groups as they think necessary. Do you think we should make a different or additional overture to the CCWG and the ccNSO?
I do. I will follow up on it if I get a green light from Alissa/vice chairs, though Martin Boyle and Keith Davidson are in a better position than me to make such an overture to the ccNSO. OTOH, a properly organized interface with the CCWG would involve key people from both GNSO and ccNSO. The need for such a meeting is one reason why I am a bit worried about the open-ended "we will meet with anybody and everybody" approach, because as a veteran of ICANN meetings I foresee highly crowded schedules which may require careful prioritization. I don't think our priorities should be driven by the order in which we receive invitations or expressions of interest. My take on the priorities is pretty clear: - Top: public meeting - 2nd: CCWG - 3rd: GNSO and ccNSO if CCWG is not possible - 4th: GAC and ALAC - 5th: anyone else I hope this is not interpreted as diminishing the importance of GAC or ALAC. Far from it. My concern is that separate meetings tend to reinforce the silo mentality and all of them need to come together in the CCWG if they want to actually develop a consensus proposal by Jan 15.
participants (5)
-
Alissa Cooper -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Milton L Mueller