Direct consultation with communities
Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting. I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community. I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc. Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole. Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
Paul, I understood your comment as a request for how to design the open meeting we will have, which are good suggestions that we need to bring back when we design the session. So keep these ideas in mind. Patrik On 6 sep 2014, at 16:54, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting.
I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community.
I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc.
Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Since I did not get a chance to provide input on Sept 6 about the topic of meetings with specific ICANN constituencies at ICANN51, I wanted to provide some of the motivation for why I thought this would be a good idea. The reason that I thought that having meetings between some ICG members and other constituencies at ICANN51 would be useful would be to provide an opportunity for high-bandwidth exchange of information and Q&A about how people from those constituencies can become involved in the operational community processes that are already starting to develop the transition proposals. I will use the IETF process as an example. Of course, we have posted information about how to participate in the IETF’s IANAPLAN working group at <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. We can write blog posts and announcements to point people to this web site, to further elaborate about how IETF participation works, to point people to the Tao of the IETF <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>, etc. But for some potential participants, it will be more effective and efficient to have a meeting where someone from the IETF could explain the IETF process, and where the potential participants could ask questions. There are enough important details about how IETF participation works to fill at least a 10-minute presentation, I would say, and I imagine that with some audiences that might yield 10 or more minutes of Q&A. Of course, we could string together three of these segments (one for each operational community) and have that comprise an hour or more of our open session that we already have scheduled for the full ICG at ICANN51. But I sort of assumed that we would not want to spend quite so much time solely on the community participation aspect. And there may be specific participation aspects that would generate more discussion in a side meeting with a particular constituency. For example, in the IETF, everyone participates only as an individual. How does that work for government reps? How has it worked in the past? This might be an interesting discussion to have specifically with the GAC. Alternatively, we could try to schedule open conference calls for this purpose. The advantage of side meetings at ICANN51 is that a large portion of a particular target audience will definitely be present, whereas with conference calls we must deal with time zones and scheduling conflicts. Or, as many have suggested, ICG members could impart this sort of information to their own constituencies. The downside that I see there is that we each may not be process experts when it comes to other community processes. For example, I recently sent an email that reveals all the things I do not understand about the CWG for names. I would be perfectly pleased to have a member of the names community come to the IETF and give a presentation about how to participate in the names process (ay volunteers? ;)), and I think that would yield a far better outcome than if I were to try to relay the same information to the IETF community, given my lack of familiarity with how names processes usually work. So my thinking here was that we could have one or two people who can speak with authority about each operational community process have side meetings with other constituencies at ICANN51. And I see no reason why these meetings should not be public. My overall goal is that we as an ICG do everything that we can to make sure that as broad an audience as possible understands, early on, how to participate in the development of transition proposals. We can write about it all we want and talk about it at our own calls and meetings, but often the most effective way to get the message out is to go directly to the people we’re trying to reach, and ICANN51 gives us a good opportunity to do that and have high-bandwidth exchange with potential participants. I want us to avoid a situation where early 2015 rolls around and we start hearing that people didn’t know how to participate, so they just send proposals directly to us. So my question is: what do people think of focused, public side meetings at ICANN51 where, say, 4-8 ICG members meet with any ICANN constituency that is interested in learning more about how to participate in the operational community processes to develop transition proposals? Alissa On 9/6/14, 9:54 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting.
I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community.
I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc.
Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, I'm totally with you in seeing the broadening of awareness and participation as a major target for such meetings. I think some of us shall anyway be at ICANN 51 and would be willing to participate. If possible these meetings should only require a minimum of organizational effort since all facilities (rooms, translation, transscripts) are normally fixed some weeks in advance. So if we wish to do so we should immediately refer to ICANN. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:58 PM To: Paul Wilson ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Direct consultation with communities Since I did not get a chance to provide input on Sept 6 about the topic of meetings with specific ICANN constituencies at ICANN51, I wanted to provide some of the motivation for why I thought this would be a good idea. The reason that I thought that having meetings between some ICG members and other constituencies at ICANN51 would be useful would be to provide an opportunity for high-bandwidth exchange of information and Q&A about how people from those constituencies can become involved in the operational community processes that are already starting to develop the transition proposals. I will use the IETF process as an example. Of course, we have posted information about how to participate in the IETF’s IANAPLAN working group at <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. We can write blog posts and announcements to point people to this web site, to further elaborate about how IETF participation works, to point people to the Tao of the IETF <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>, etc. But for some potential participants, it will be more effective and efficient to have a meeting where someone from the IETF could explain the IETF process, and where the potential participants could ask questions. There are enough important details about how IETF participation works to fill at least a 10-minute presentation, I would say, and I imagine that with some audiences that might yield 10 or more minutes of Q&A. Of course, we could string together three of these segments (one for each operational community) and have that comprise an hour or more of our open session that we already have scheduled for the full ICG at ICANN51. But I sort of assumed that we would not want to spend quite so much time solely on the community participation aspect. And there may be specific participation aspects that would generate more discussion in a side meeting with a particular constituency. For example, in the IETF, everyone participates only as an individual. How does that work for government reps? How has it worked in the past? This might be an interesting discussion to have specifically with the GAC. Alternatively, we could try to schedule open conference calls for this purpose. The advantage of side meetings at ICANN51 is that a large portion of a particular target audience will definitely be present, whereas with conference calls we must deal with time zones and scheduling conflicts. Or, as many have suggested, ICG members could impart this sort of information to their own constituencies. The downside that I see there is that we each may not be process experts when it comes to other community processes. For example, I recently sent an email that reveals all the things I do not understand about the CWG for names. I would be perfectly pleased to have a member of the names community come to the IETF and give a presentation about how to participate in the names process (ay volunteers? ;)), and I think that would yield a far better outcome than if I were to try to relay the same information to the IETF community, given my lack of familiarity with how names processes usually work. So my thinking here was that we could have one or two people who can speak with authority about each operational community process have side meetings with other constituencies at ICANN51. And I see no reason why these meetings should not be public. My overall goal is that we as an ICG do everything that we can to make sure that as broad an audience as possible understands, early on, how to participate in the development of transition proposals. We can write about it all we want and talk about it at our own calls and meetings, but often the most effective way to get the message out is to go directly to the people we’re trying to reach, and ICANN51 gives us a good opportunity to do that and have high-bandwidth exchange with potential participants. I want us to avoid a situation where early 2015 rolls around and we start hearing that people didn’t know how to participate, so they just send proposals directly to us. So my question is: what do people think of focused, public side meetings at ICANN51 where, say, 4-8 ICG members meet with any ICANN constituency that is interested in learning more about how to participate in the operational community processes to develop transition proposals? Alissa On 9/6/14, 9:54 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting.
I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community.
I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc.
Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________ 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
Would it not be more efficient to focus on the open forum during ICANN51 and allow ICG members to interact effectively with their constituencies/communities considering that each of the constituencies would have IANA transition process on its agenda. May be we can consider the out reach to the CCWG in addition to the Open Forum. The CCWG has participants/interested and affected parties/observers including GAC in one hall for any information from one of the operation communities, say IETF, to share experience and answer questions. The chair may wish to explore this route. I am sorry if I missed some discussions regarding this. Mary Uduma Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN -----Original Message----- From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Sender: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 22:17:50 To: Alissa Cooper<alissa@cooperw.in>; Paul Wilson<pwilson@apnic.net>; ICG<internal-cg@icann.org> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Direct consultation with communities Alissa, I'm totally with you in seeing the broadening of awareness and participation as a major target for such meetings. I think some of us shall anyway be at ICANN 51 and would be willing to participate. If possible these meetings should only require a minimum of organizational effort since all facilities (rooms, translation, transscripts) are normally fixed some weeks in advance. So if we wish to do so we should immediately refer to ICANN. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:58 PM To: Paul Wilson ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Direct consultation with communities Since I did not get a chance to provide input on Sept 6 about the topic of meetings with specific ICANN constituencies at ICANN51, I wanted to provide some of the motivation for why I thought this would be a good idea. The reason that I thought that having meetings between some ICG members and other constituencies at ICANN51 would be useful would be to provide an opportunity for high-bandwidth exchange of information and Q&A about how people from those constituencies can become involved in the operational community processes that are already starting to develop the transition proposals. I will use the IETF process as an example. Of course, we have posted information about how to participate in the IETF’s IANAPLAN working group at <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. We can write blog posts and announcements to point people to this web site, to further elaborate about how IETF participation works, to point people to the Tao of the IETF <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>, etc. But for some potential participants, it will be more effective and efficient to have a meeting where someone from the IETF could explain the IETF process, and where the potential participants could ask questions. There are enough important details about how IETF participation works to fill at least a 10-minute presentation, I would say, and I imagine that with some audiences that might yield 10 or more minutes of Q&A. Of course, we could string together three of these segments (one for each operational community) and have that comprise an hour or more of our open session that we already have scheduled for the full ICG at ICANN51. But I sort of assumed that we would not want to spend quite so much time solely on the community participation aspect. And there may be specific participation aspects that would generate more discussion in a side meeting with a particular constituency. For example, in the IETF, everyone participates only as an individual. How does that work for government reps? How has it worked in the past? This might be an interesting discussion to have specifically with the GAC. Alternatively, we could try to schedule open conference calls for this purpose. The advantage of side meetings at ICANN51 is that a large portion of a particular target audience will definitely be present, whereas with conference calls we must deal with time zones and scheduling conflicts. Or, as many have suggested, ICG members could impart this sort of information to their own constituencies. The downside that I see there is that we each may not be process experts when it comes to other community processes. For example, I recently sent an email that reveals all the things I do not understand about the CWG for names. I would be perfectly pleased to have a member of the names community come to the IETF and give a presentation about how to participate in the names process (ay volunteers? ;)), and I think that would yield a far better outcome than if I were to try to relay the same information to the IETF community, given my lack of familiarity with how names processes usually work. So my thinking here was that we could have one or two people who can speak with authority about each operational community process have side meetings with other constituencies at ICANN51. And I see no reason why these meetings should not be public. My overall goal is that we as an ICG do everything that we can to make sure that as broad an audience as possible understands, early on, how to participate in the development of transition proposals. We can write about it all we want and talk about it at our own calls and meetings, but often the most effective way to get the message out is to go directly to the people we’re trying to reach, and ICANN51 gives us a good opportunity to do that and have high-bandwidth exchange with potential participants. I want us to avoid a situation where early 2015 rolls around and we start hearing that people didn’t know how to participate, so they just send proposals directly to us. So my question is: what do people think of focused, public side meetings at ICANN51 where, say, 4-8 ICG members meet with any ICANN constituency that is interested in learning more about how to participate in the operational community processes to develop transition proposals? Alissa On 9/6/14, 9:54 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting.
I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community.
I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc.
Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Alissa .. I also believe that direct outreach, particularly from representatives of the operational communities, to other interested parties, has its own merit, indication and benefits .. Thank you for the thorough convincing explanation .. Kind regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:18 PM To: Alissa Cooper; Paul Wilson; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Direct consultation with communities Alissa, I'm totally with you in seeing the broadening of awareness and participation as a major target for such meetings. I think some of us shall anyway be at ICANN 51 and would be willing to participate. If possible these meetings should only require a minimum of organizational effort since all facilities (rooms, translation, transscripts) are normally fixed some weeks in advance. So if we wish to do so we should immediately refer to ICANN. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:58 PM To: Paul Wilson ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Direct consultation with communities Since I did not get a chance to provide input on Sept 6 about the topic of meetings with specific ICANN constituencies at ICANN51, I wanted to provide some of the motivation for why I thought this would be a good idea. The reason that I thought that having meetings between some ICG members and other constituencies at ICANN51 would be useful would be to provide an opportunity for high-bandwidth exchange of information and Q&A about how people from those constituencies can become involved in the operational community processes that are already starting to develop the transition proposals. I will use the IETF process as an example. Of course, we have posted information about how to participate in the IETF’s IANAPLAN working group at <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. We can write blog posts and announcements to point people to this web site, to further elaborate about how IETF participation works, to point people to the Tao of the IETF <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>, etc. But for some potential participants, it will be more effective and efficient to have a meeting where someone from the IETF could explain the IETF process, and where the potential participants could ask questions. There are enough important details about how IETF participation works to fill at least a 10-minute presentation, I would say, and I imagine that with some audiences that might yield 10 or more minutes of Q&A. Of course, we could string together three of these segments (one for each operational community) and have that comprise an hour or more of our open session that we already have scheduled for the full ICG at ICANN51. But I sort of assumed that we would not want to spend quite so much time solely on the community participation aspect. And there may be specific participation aspects that would generate more discussion in a side meeting with a particular constituency. For example, in the IETF, everyone participates only as an individual. How does that work for government reps? How has it worked in the past? This might be an interesting discussion to have specifically with the GAC. Alternatively, we could try to schedule open conference calls for this purpose. The advantage of side meetings at ICANN51 is that a large portion of a particular target audience will definitely be present, whereas with conference calls we must deal with time zones and scheduling conflicts. Or, as many have suggested, ICG members could impart this sort of information to their own constituencies. The downside that I see there is that we each may not be process experts when it comes to other community processes. For example, I recently sent an email that reveals all the things I do not understand about the CWG for names. I would be perfectly pleased to have a member of the names community come to the IETF and give a presentation about how to participate in the names process (ay volunteers? ;)), and I think that would yield a far better outcome than if I were to try to relay the same information to the IETF community, given my lack of familiarity with how names processes usually work. So my thinking here was that we could have one or two people who can speak with authority about each operational community process have side meetings with other constituencies at ICANN51. And I see no reason why these meetings should not be public. My overall goal is that we as an ICG do everything that we can to make sure that as broad an audience as possible understands, early on, how to participate in the development of transition proposals. We can write about it all we want and talk about it at our own calls and meetings, but often the most effective way to get the message out is to go directly to the people we’re trying to reach, and ICANN51 gives us a good opportunity to do that and have high-bandwidth exchange with potential participants. I want us to avoid a situation where early 2015 rolls around and we start hearing that people didn’t know how to participate, so they just send proposals directly to us. So my question is: what do people think of focused, public side meetings at ICANN51 where, say, 4-8 ICG members meet with any ICANN constituency that is interested in learning more about how to participate in the operational community processes to develop transition proposals? Alissa On 9/6/14, 9:54 AM, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
Adiel pointed out to me that we already have an open session in LA in addition to the ICG meeting on the Friday. So I withdraw the proposal to have a special open consultation session during the ICG meeting.
I do suggest that a combined open consultation session is the best way to reach the broader community.
I do not favour individual community meetings, and particularly not closed ones, for several of the reasons discussed in today’s meeting - transparency, balance/fairness, efficiency/cost etc.
Other than this, the ICG is comprised of individuals all of whom are charged with providing a bridge between their communities and the group as a whole.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Manal Ismail -
mnuduma＠yahoo.com -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
WUKnoben