I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) … Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.) How long should the session be? 90 minutes? I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen. Thanks, Alissa
Yes and I think 60 minutes. A 30 minute update and 30 minute Q&A should be sufficient in light of where we'll be and understanding the busy ICANN schedule. If we really think we can fill 90 minutes I'm fine with that too. Keith On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:47 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) …
Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.)
How long should the session be? 90 minutes?
I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
We should have a session. I think 60 minutes is enough for the CG part. But I'm wondering if there should also be "this is what is happening at IETF (etc)"? Or is it too early? Maybe not, we know the process and it is ongoing even if the result is not there yet... Jari
Good point - a cross check of community consultation approaches might be appreciated. N -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of jari.arkko@piuha.net Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 11:27 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? We should have a session. I think 60 minutes is enough for the CG part. But I'm wondering if there should also be "this is what is happening at IETF (etc)"? Or is it too early? Maybe not, we know the process and it is ongoing even if the result is not there yet... Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 1 aug 2014, at 03:27, jari.arkko@piuha.net wrote:
We should have a session.
I think 60 minutes is enough for the CG part.
But I'm wondering if there should also be "this is what is happening at IETF (etc)"? Or is it too early? Maybe not, we know the process and it is ongoing even if the result is not there yet...
We have I think three possible contents for an ICG session: 1. ICG present where we are, what we will do next. 2. Feedback from community to ICG (including Q&A), i.e. "open mike" 3. "Invitation" to other groups to come and present what is happening (IETF, RIRs, GNSO, ccNSO etc) To some degree I think we need all three. It is VERY important we do not loose anyone, so taking for granted the community know where we are is dangerous. Specifically given the "misunderstandings" I see on various mailing lists. So 1 is important. I also think 2 is important. I.e. "why not"? 3 might also be important to cross feed information from these groups to the community (not so much to ICG). Proposal: 1: 15 min 3: 10 min for each group that want to present 2: Whatever is left of 90 minutes Patrik
Patrik, as usual, you are far more structured in thinking ahead... I fully agree on how you see a public session, inparticular the exchange with the other "interested groups". So definitely I see here a need for 90 mins. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 7:34 AM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Colleagues: If we are thinking of public events, may I suggest that we consider also drafting a status update or brief statement of position to be read at or distributed for the IANA transition panel at IGF? I would hate that our first public pronouncement come again along the margins of a ICANN event... Perhaps a couple of us could work on that in advance of the August call for the consideration of the group? Joe On 8/1/2014 4:17 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Patrik,
as usual, you are far more structured in thinking ahead...
I fully agree on how you see a public session, inparticular the exchange with the other "interested groups". So definitely I see here a need for 90 mins.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 7:34 AM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree and also think we need 90 mins. in total - 30 for pres. and 60 for community engagement. Lynn On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:17 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Patrik,
as usual, you are far more structured in thinking ahead...
I fully agree on how you see a public session, inparticular the exchange with the other "interested groups". So definitely I see here a need for 90 mins.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 7:34 AM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Alissa for the initiative and the suggestion .. Yes for a public session at ICANN 51 .. and yes for 90 min. .. Agree with Paul and others on maximizing the time for community engagement, Agree with Patrik's suggestion on how to manage the time of the session, and Agree with Joseph's suggestion regarding a "status update or brief statement of position to be read at or distributed for the IANA transition panel at IGF" .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 3:57 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? Agree and also think we need 90 mins. in total - 30 for pres. and 60 for community engagement. Lynn On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:17 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Patrik,
as usual, you are far more structured in thinking ahead...
I fully agree on how you see a public session, inparticular the exchange with the other "interested groups". So definitely I see here a need for 90 mins.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 7:34 AM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Ok, it seems we have lots of support for doing a public session at ICANN 51. Alice has explained to me that session requests are due August 8 at 18:00 UTC. A session request consists of the following: * Session title; * Brief session overview (extensive session overview and agenda details can be provided closer to the date) * Number of attendees ( e.g. 150, 300, 500+) * Date, time and duration (From Alice: "based on our experience, I suggest holding the session on Wednesday as this timeframe will allow communities to hold discussions in their respective meetings prior to the session") Patrik, since people seemed to like your proposal, can I ask you to put together these details and get it back to the group and Alice before the deadline? Joe, can we give you an action item to start figuring out how/when a statement from the ICG might be read at the IGF and what it might contain? Thanks, Alissa On 8/2/14, 10:27 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Thanks Alissa for the initiative and the suggestion .. Yes for a public session at ICANN 51 .. and yes for 90 min. .. Agree with Paul and others on maximizing the time for community engagement, Agree with Patrik's suggestion on how to manage the time of the session, and Agree with Joseph's suggestion regarding a "status update or brief statement of position to be read at or distributed for the IANA transition panel at IGF" ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 3:57 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?
Agree and also think we need 90 mins. in total - 30 for pres. and 60 for community engagement.
Lynn
On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:17 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Patrik,
as usual, you are far more structured in thinking ahead...
I fully agree on how you see a public session, inparticular the exchange with the other "interested groups". So definitely I see here a need for 90 mins.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 7:34 AM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
I do not really know how to call the slot where groups are able to report back where they are in their coordination work. I think the general feeling in this group is that a) anyone can present, while b) ensure we get reports from each one of the three main groups. I think we later on, if we get too many requests, must prioritise. I am sure we will be able to do so, but, we need to today do a wording that makes people understand what we might do. I.e. not allow anyone to speak, because we simply can not. Comments are appreciated. This is also available in Dropbox. On 4 Aug 2014, at 19:13, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
* Session title;
Discussion with the ICG
* Brief session overview (extensive session overview and agenda details can be provided closer to the date)
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will at the ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles have a discussion with the community on various aspects of the transition. The schedule for the session is as follows: - 15 min update from ICG - 5 min update from each one of the groups that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG (max 30 minutes all together) - 45 minutes open microphone where issues are brought up from individuals on the floor and/or remote participants
* Number of attendees ( e.g. 150, 300, 500+)
500+
* Date, time and duration (From Alice: "based on our experience, I suggest holding the session on Wednesday as this timeframe will allow communities to hold discussions in their respective meetings prior to the session")
Wednesday or Thursday Patrik
Many thanks Patrik .. I do not have a strong position but would suggest: Session title to be: 'ICG Discussion with the Community' or 'Community Discussion with the ICG' And would suggest the following for the session description: The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will, at the ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles, have a discussion with the community on various aspects of the transition. The schedule for the session is as follows: - 15 min update from ICG - 30 min update from coordinated proposals, 5 min. each. To plan the session accordingly and accommodate max number of requests, groups are required to make themselves known to the ICG in advance, highlighting their coordination activities and sending [committing to send] in proposals [material] they intend to discuss - 45 minutes open microphone where issues are brought up by individuals from the floor and/or remote participants Does this say what we want? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik F?ltstr?m Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 7:00 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? I do not really know how to call the slot where groups are able to report back where they are in their coordination work. I think the general feeling in this group is that a) anyone can present, while b) ensure we get reports from each one of the three main groups. I think we later on, if we get too many requests, must prioritise. I am sure we will be able to do so, but, we need to today do a wording that makes people understand what we might do. I.e. not allow anyone to speak, because we simply can not. Comments are appreciated. This is also available in Dropbox. On 4 Aug 2014, at 19:13, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
* Session title;
Discussion with the ICG
* Brief session overview (extensive session overview and agenda details can be provided closer to the date)
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will at the ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles have a discussion with the community on various aspects of the transition. The schedule for the session is as follows: - 15 min update from ICG - 5 min update from each one of the groups that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG (max 30 minutes all together) - 45 minutes open microphone where issues are brought up from individuals on the floor and/or remote participants
* Number of attendees ( e.g. 150, 300, 500+)
500+
* Date, time and duration (From Alice: "based on our experience, I suggest holding the session on Wednesday as this timeframe will allow communities to hold discussions in their respective meetings prior to the session")
Wednesday or Thursday Patrik
All, We have a session at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. The session is Thursday October 16 between 10AM and 12AM. Feedback on mainly this thread have lead me to the following proposal: Background: We will try to get chairs for as many ICG members as possible on stage. The set up is that ICG should be in "listening" mode, although communication should be encouraged to not only be from community to ICG, but community members with each other. It is one of maybe too few cases where people can say what they want and listen to others before people have to submit their responses to our RFP (in Jan 2015). The session itself will be chaired by Alissa as the chair of the ICG. The "open microphone" session will be moderated by myself and Mohammed, similar to how Jari and I moderated in London. We will have a timer that notifies 2 min. We should have two microphone queues, one for continued discussion on same topic, one for new topics. 1. 10:00 5 min - Alissa opens the session and explains the practicalities 2. 10:05 15 min - Alissa or whoever ICG designates give an update on the status of ICG, and whatever else ICG decide to present. 3. 10:20 5 min each - Each group that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG, can present. 4. Approximately 10:55 55 min - Open Microphone 5. 11:55 5 min - Alissa closes the session Comments are appreciated (this also exists in Dropbox). Patrik On 6 aug 2014, at 18:59, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I do not really know how to call the slot where groups are able to report back where they are in their coordination work. I think the general feeling in this group is that a) anyone can present, while b) ensure we get reports from each one of the three main groups.
I think we later on, if we get too many requests, must prioritise. I am sure we will be able to do so, but, we need to today do a wording that makes people understand what we might do. I.e. not allow anyone to speak, because we simply can not.
Comments are appreciated.
This is also available in Dropbox.
On 4 Aug 2014, at 19:13, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
* Session title;
Discussion with the ICG
* Brief session overview (extensive session overview and agenda details can be provided closer to the date)
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will at the ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles have a discussion with the community on various aspects of the transition. The schedule for the session is as follows:
- 15 min update from ICG - 5 min update from each one of the groups that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG (max 30 minutes all together) - 45 minutes open microphone where issues are brought up from individuals on the floor and/or remote participants
* Number of attendees ( e.g. 150, 300, 500+)
500+
* Date, time and duration (From Alice: "based on our experience, I suggest holding the session on Wednesday as this timeframe will allow communities to hold discussions in their respective meetings prior to the session")
Wednesday or Thursday
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Patrik Tks May you further explain what do you mean by " each - Each group that make themselves known to the ICG,"as contained in para 3 What are these Groups for which 5 mints has been envisaged with 35 mints in total? Please also advise what is the status of the FAQ ?Has any body drafted these FAQ? If yes where they are ? Have there been agreed by ICG MEMBERS ? Kavouss 3. 10:20 5 min " each - Each group that make themselves known to the ICG," are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG, can present. 2014-09-28 20:27 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:
All,
We have a session at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. The session is Thursday October 16 between 10AM and 12AM.
Feedback on mainly this thread have lead me to the following proposal:
Background:
We will try to get chairs for as many ICG members as possible on stage. The set up is that ICG should be in "listening" mode, although communication should be encouraged to not only be from community to ICG, but community members with each other. It is one of maybe too few cases where people can say what they want and listen to others before people have to submit their responses to our RFP (in Jan 2015).
The session itself will be chaired by Alissa as the chair of the ICG. The "open microphone" session will be moderated by myself and Mohammed, similar to how Jari and I moderated in London.
We will have a timer that notifies 2 min.
We should have two microphone queues, one for continued discussion on same topic, one for new topics.
1. 10:00 5 min - Alissa opens the session and explains the practicalities
2. 10:05 15 min - Alissa or whoever ICG designates give an update on the status of ICG, and whatever else ICG decide to present.
3. 10:20 5 min each - Each group that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG, can present.
4. Approximately 10:55 55 min - Open Microphone
5. 11:55 5 min - Alissa closes the session
Comments are appreciated (this also exists in Dropbox).
Patrik
On 6 aug 2014, at 18:59, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I do not really know how to call the slot where groups are able to report back where they are in their coordination work. I think the general feeling in this group is that a) anyone can present, while b) ensure we get reports from each one of the three main groups.
I think we later on, if we get too many requests, must prioritise. I am sure we will be able to do so, but, we need to today do a wording that makes people understand what we might do. I.e. not allow anyone to speak, because we simply can not.
Comments are appreciated.
This is also available in Dropbox.
On 4 Aug 2014, at 19:13, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
* Session title;
Discussion with the ICG
* Brief session overview (extensive session overview and agenda details can be provided closer to the date)
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will at the ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles have a discussion with the community on various aspects of the transition. The schedule for the session is as follows:
- 15 min update from ICG - 5 min update from each one of the groups that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG (max 30 minutes all together) - 45 minutes open microphone where issues are brought up from individuals on the floor and/or remote participants
* Number of attendees ( e.g. 150, 300, 500+)
500+
* Date, time and duration (From Alice: "based on our experience, I suggest holding the session on Wednesday as this timeframe will allow communities to hold discussions in their respective meetings prior to the session")
Wednesday or Thursday
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
-----Original Message----- We will try to get chairs for as many ICG members as possible on stage.
So of course you will be the first to volunteer to sit in the audience if there are not enough ;-)
The set up is that ICG should be in "listening" mode, although communication should be encouraged to not only be from community to ICG, but community members with each other. It is one of maybe
Definitely ICG members should not use up this valuable interaction time making long statements. But one cannot 'listen' without interaction. ICG members will need the opportunity to ask clarification questions or to express views that might elicit statements to listen to. The interaction should make full use of the full range of views and stakeholder groups in the ICG. So I hope you and Mohammed are prepared to let the ICG members interact with their constituents.
2. 10:05 15 min - Alissa or whoever ICG designates give an update on the status of ICG, and whatever else ICG decide to present.
My hope is that this update should focus on understanding the timeline, the RFP, and on the need for the operational communities to develop proposals - and NOT on ICG internal procedures and processes.
3. 10:20 5 min each - Each group that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG, can present.
Agree with Kavouss that this needs clarification. I am assuming you mean the operational community reps. Or it I literally "any group that make themselves known" to us?
On 29 sep 2014, at 16:21, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- We will try to get chairs for as many ICG members as possible on stage.
So of course you will be the first to volunteer to sit in the audience if there are not enough ;-)
I promise! More seriously, we have got two different room layout suggestions and there was nothing else than "looks good" from ICG members. I think personally it will work out.
The set up is that ICG should be in "listening" mode, although communication should be encouraged to not only be from community to ICG, but community members with each other. It is one of maybe
Definitely ICG members should not use up this valuable interaction time making long statements. But one cannot 'listen' without interaction. ICG members will need the opportunity to ask clarification questions or to express views that might elicit statements to listen to. The interaction should make full use of the full range of views and stakeholder groups in the ICG. So I hope you and Mohammed are prepared to let the ICG members interact with their constituents.
Yes, and even if I say now "of course", I agree with you that is an important point. It is though very very important there are not, as you say, long statements from ICG members. In general, ICG should listen. Right? But to listen we might have to ask clarifying questions.
2. 10:05 15 min - Alissa or whoever ICG designates give an update on the status of ICG, and whatever else ICG decide to present.
My hope is that this update should focus on understanding the timeline, the RFP, and on the need for the operational communities to develop proposals - and NOT on ICG internal procedures and processes.
Yes, I hope so as well, but what it is have to be decided by the ICG and Alissa. I do not feel I can be prescriptive here of course.
3. 10:20 5 min each - Each group that make themselves known to the ICG, are coordinating their activities, and intend to send in material to the ICG, can present.
Agree with Kavouss that this needs clarification. I am assuming you mean the operational community reps. Or it I literally "any group that make themselves known" to us?
To be honest, I am happy to change this to whatever you propose. Should we limit it to "the operational community reps"? Is that ccNSO, GNSO, IETF and RIRs? What about (for example) ccTLDs not members of ccNSO? Patrik
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Should we limit it to "the operational community reps"? Is that ccNSO, GNSO, IETF and RIRs? What about (for example) ccTLDs not members of ccNSO?
Good question. Maybe your more open-ended initial formulation is more useful in the meantime, and if things get out of hand (which I doubt) we can scale back or prioritize as needed
On 29 sep 2014, at 18:11, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Should we limit it to "the operational community reps"? Is that ccNSO, GNSO, IETF and RIRs? What about (for example) ccTLDs not members of ccNSO?
Good question. Maybe your more open-ended initial formulation is more useful in the meantime, and if things get out of hand (which I doubt) we can scale back or prioritize as needed
Exactly my view. And to answer Kavouss, my estimate regarding timing is that we will get max 7 requests. It is just a guess. Patrik
Sure. I'm assuming the transition panel would be the most appropriate time and I am slotted to be on that panel as are a couple of other members I believe... Sent from my iPad
On Aug 4, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Ok, it seems we have lots of support for doing a public session at ICANN 51. Alice has explained to me that session requests are due August 8 at 18:00 UTC. A session request consists of the following:
* Session title; * Brief session overview (extensive session overview and agenda details can be provided closer to the date) * Number of attendees ( e.g. 150, 300, 500+) * Date, time and duration (From Alice: "based on our experience, I suggest holding the session on Wednesday as this timeframe will allow communities to hold discussions in their respective meetings prior to the session")
Patrik, since people seemed to like your proposal, can I ask you to put together these details and get it back to the group and Alice before the deadline?
Joe, can we give you an action item to start figuring out how/when a statement from the ICG might be read at the IGF and what it might contain?
Thanks, Alissa
On 8/2/14, 10:27 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Thanks Alissa for the initiative and the suggestion .. Yes for a public session at ICANN 51 .. and yes for 90 min. .. Agree with Paul and others on maximizing the time for community engagement, Agree with Patrik's suggestion on how to manage the time of the session, and Agree with Joseph's suggestion regarding a "status update or brief statement of position to be read at or distributed for the IANA transition panel at IGF" ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 3:57 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?
Agree and also think we need 90 mins. in total - 30 for pres. and 60 for community engagement.
Lynn
On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:17 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Patrik,
as usual, you are far more structured in thinking ahead...
I fully agree on how you see a public session, inparticular the exchange with the other "interested groups". So definitely I see here a need for 90 mins.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 7:34 AM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51?
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree with Patrik on structure and length. Best, Jon On Aug 1, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 1 aug 2014, at 03:27, jari.arkko@piuha.net wrote:
We should have a session.
I think 60 minutes is enough for the CG part.
But I'm wondering if there should also be "this is what is happening at IETF (etc)"? Or is it too early? Maybe not, we know the process and it is ongoing even if the result is not there yet...
We have I think three possible contents for an ICG session:
1. ICG present where we are, what we will do next.
2. Feedback from community to ICG (including Q&A), i.e. "open mike"
3. "Invitation" to other groups to come and present what is happening (IETF, RIRs, GNSO, ccNSO etc)
To some degree I think we need all three.
It is VERY important we do not loose anyone, so taking for granted the community know where we are is dangerous. Specifically given the "misunderstandings" I see on various mailing lists. So 1 is important.
I also think 2 is important. I.e. "why not"?
3 might also be important to cross feed information from these groups to the community (not so much to ICG).
Proposal:
1: 15 min 3: 10 min for each group that want to present 2: Whatever is left of 90 minutes
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
+1 in support of Patrick's recommendation. Keith On Aug 1, 2014, at 2:06 PM, "Jon Nevett" <jon@donuts.co> wrote:
Agree with Patrik on structure and length. Best, Jon
On Aug 1, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 1 aug 2014, at 03:27, jari.arkko@piuha.net wrote:
We should have a session.
I think 60 minutes is enough for the CG part.
But I'm wondering if there should also be "this is what is happening at IETF (etc)"? Or is it too early? Maybe not, we know the process and it is ongoing even if the result is not there yet...
We have I think three possible contents for an ICG session:
1. ICG present where we are, what we will do next.
2. Feedback from community to ICG (including Q&A), i.e. "open mike"
3. "Invitation" to other groups to come and present what is happening (IETF, RIRs, GNSO, ccNSO etc)
To some degree I think we need all three.
It is VERY important we do not loose anyone, so taking for granted the community know where we are is dangerous. Specifically given the "misunderstandings" I see on various mailing lists. So 1 is important.
I also think 2 is important. I.e. "why not"?
3 might also be important to cross feed information from these groups to the community (not so much to ICG).
Proposal:
1: 15 min 3: 10 min for each group that want to present 2: Whatever is left of 90 minutes
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
Yes we should ask for a session, and I suggest to allocate a full slot of 90 minutes. 30 minutes for updates, and up to 60 for questions and discussion. It is much worse to curtail an active discussion due to lack of time, than to finish early because discussion comes to a natural conclusion. Not that I expect the latter. Paul. On 1 Aug 2014, at 8:46 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) …
Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.)
How long should the session be? 90 minutes?
I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Agree with Paul. --MM -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:41 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? Yes we should ask for a session, and I suggest to allocate a full slot of 90 minutes. 30 minutes for updates, and up to 60 for questions and discussion. It is much worse to curtail an active discussion due to lack of time, than to finish early because discussion comes to a natural conclusion. Not that I expect the latter. Paul. On 1 Aug 2014, at 8:46 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I know you're all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) ...
Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.)
How long should the session be? 90 minutes?
I'm asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen.
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
Yes, it is essential that we report back to the broader community, and solicit feedback. While I am sure we will each be doing this within our own narrower consituencies, I for one would appreciate the opportunity to hear from across the community, and outside of our normal community (e.g. I am particularly interested in the views of ccTLDs who are not members of the ccNSO) So I would go for a 90 minute session, and have no more than 20 minutes of formal presentation, since we don't have terribly much yet to put on the table. Cheers Keith On 1/08/2014 10:46 a.m., Alissa Cooper wrote:
I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) …
Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.)
How long should the session be? 90 minutes?
I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes to a public session, and 60-90 mins dependent on rest of the agenda and available time. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 8:47 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) … Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.) How long should the session be? 90 minutes? I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes fora public session at ICANN 51, but I don't see that we need 90 minutes. =============================================================== On 31/07/14 19:46, Alissa Cooper wrote:
I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) …
Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.)
How long should the session be? 90 minutes?
I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes for me. 90mins is perfect. 60mins briefing and 30mins Q&A. Mary Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Sender: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:46:30 To: ICG<internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) … Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.) How long should the session be? 90 minutes? I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes to the public session; 60 mins may be enough Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 12:46 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Public session at ICANN 51? I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) … Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.) How long should the session be? 90 minutes? I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (16)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Drazek, Keith -
Hartmut Richard Glaser -
jari.arkko＠piuha.net -
Jon Nevett -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Keith Davidson -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Milton L Mueller -
mnuduma＠yahoo.com -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
WUKnoben