All, We must do scheduling in Singapore. Part from our meeting that start at 9AM on Friday as announced earlier, I have also heard some interest in yet another open session with the community. My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far). The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min. What do you think? Patrik
We have to do this. I would reserve 3x45 minutes. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 13.12.2014, at 08:17, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
We must do scheduling in Singapore.
Part from our meeting that start at 9AM on Friday as announced earlier, I have also heard some interest in yet another open session with the community.
My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far).
The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min.
What do you think?
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree. It should be 1 meeting together with all operational communities; agenda scheduled as you suggested. So we have more flexibility in allocating the time available. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 8:52 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Session(s) in Singapore We have to do this. I would reserve 3x45 minutes. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 13.12.2014, at 08:17, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
We must do scheduling in Singapore.
Part from our meeting that start at 9AM on Friday as announced earlier, I have also heard some interest in yet another open session with the community.
My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far).
The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min.
What do you think?
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
Very good idea Patrik, and I agree with Daniel that 45 minutes would be better (better not to be rushed). Lynn On Dec 13, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
We have to do this. I would reserve 3x45 minutes.
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 13.12.2014, at 08:17, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
We must do scheduling in Singapore.
Part from our meeting that start at 9AM on Friday as announced earlier, I have also heard some interest in yet another open session with the community.
My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far).
The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min.
What do you think?
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
Great idea Patrik. Cheers Keith On 13/12/2014 8:17 p.m., Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
We must do scheduling in Singapore.
Part from our meeting that start at 9AM on Friday as announced earlier, I have also heard some interest in yet another open session with the community.
My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far).
The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min.
What do you think?
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Patrik,
My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities
yes, we need this
that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far).
I think that is necessary, but I would go right ahead and have open community discussion on the things that I think are relevant for moving forward after Singapore, which I think include also things like overlaps, missing pieces, and compatibility of the different proposals (where they need to be compatible). And general feedback from the community. In other words, lets not have only a status discussion but a discussion of the substance. (Obviously the substance is of course topic that is not merely a matter of the ICANN meeting participants, but also the communities that these proposals came from as well as others; but it would be good to understand what issues ICANN participants believe we have and see if we can either clarify those during the meeting or identify as something that may need further work.)
The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min.
I’m in the 3x45 camp. Lets take the time we probably will need. This is IMO the most important thing on the ICANN agenda, so lets devote time and energy to it. Jari
Patrik, thank you for this suggested arrangement in Singapore. Like Daniel and Lynn, I agree that 3x45 seem more effective. I also agree with Jari's suggestion that the community discussion should be open to items, "things like overlap, missing pieces, and compatibility of the different proposals (where they need to be compatible)". Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> À: "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> Cc: "Coordination Group" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mardi 16 Décembre 2014 01:38:22 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Session(s) in Singapore Patrik,
My suggestion is to have a session in Singapore where we offer time for the various operational communities
yes, we need this
that have or will send input to us to explain what they have done (so far).
I think that is necessary, but I would go right ahead and have open community discussion on the things that I think are relevant for moving forward after Singapore, which I think include also things like overlaps, missing pieces, and compatibility of the different proposals (where they need to be compatible). And general feedback from the community. In other words, lets not have only a status discussion but a discussion of the substance. (Obviously the substance is of course topic that is not merely a matter of the ICANN meeting participants, but also the communities that these proposals came from as well as others; but it would be good to understand what issues ICANN participants believe we have and see if we can either clarify those during the meeting or identify as something that may need further work.)
The session would be 3x30 min (15 min presentation plus 15 min Q&A) plus 30 min for over all Q&A. I.e. 120 min.
I’m in the 3x45 camp. Lets take the time we probably will need. This is IMO the most important thing on the ICANN agenda, so lets devote time and energy to it. Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
FWIW: I have submitted the following request to meeting planning. Patrik Session Title: Responses to the RFP from ICG regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition Brief Session Overview: The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on September 8 2014 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....>. This as the by ICG defined process to gather input to the process initiated by US Government on March 14 2014. According to the timeline published <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-08sep14-en....> responses are to be submitted to January 15 2015. At around the ICANN meeting in Singapore ICG will be in "Step 2" in this timeline which is when ICG Develops a Draft Response which later is to be reviewed (see timeline). To ensure the maximum possible participation, ICG invites the three operational communities (numbers, protocols, names) to at this session present their responses to the RFP, answer questions and otherwise not only to ICG but to anyone interested explain important aspects of their proposals. Number of attendees: 300 Date, time and duration: Date: as early in the week as possible as ICG do have meetings Friday and Saturday before the ICANN week and we want to maximize participation by ICG members and otherwise people interested in ICG activities and possibly not ICANN activities (the numbers and protocol operational areas). Time: No specific suggestion Duration: As long as possible, at least 3x45 minutes, but also 30-45 min open Q&A discussion afterwards would be perfect. Having just 3x45 min for the operational communities will squeeze things a lot.
Very much agree with Jari here:
-----Original Message----- I would go right ahead and have open community discussion on the things that I think are relevant for moving forward after Singapore, which I think include also things like overlaps, missing pieces, and compatibility of the different proposals (where they need to be compatible).
As for this:
And general feedback from the community.
One question to consider is whether this becomes a public comment session in which groups strive to alter the proposals. We would need to be clear about the fact that ICG cannot re-design proposals and if we uncover any serious problems the proposals will simply be sent back to the OCs.
And general feedback from the community.
One question to consider is whether this becomes a public comment session in which groups strive to alter the proposals. We would need to be clear about the fact that ICG cannot re-design proposals and if we uncover any serious problems the proposals will simply be sent back to the OCs.
I was mostly thinking about the feedback for the whole rather than the parts, but indeed, you are absolutely right that we need to make the above clear. Jari
On 16 dec 2014, at 13:56, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
And general feedback from the community.
One question to consider is whether this becomes a public comment session in which groups strive to alter the proposals. We would need to be clear about the fact that ICG cannot re-design proposals and if we uncover any serious problems the proposals will simply be sent back to the OCs.
Agree, we must set the context. NTIA have made their announcement ICG have created our charter ICG have sent out the RFP Operational communities develop their proposals Operational communities have in their proposals to ICG <---- Here is where the session will be held Patrik
participants (8)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jari Arkko -
Keith Davidson -
Lynn St.Amour -
Milton L Mueller -
Patrik Fältström -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben