Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11 group on "consensus". I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more reluctant could expound a bit? Best, Lynn On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape.

So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.

I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.

There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.

Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together.

Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity!

Hope this helps

Martin

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All,

Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.

The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):

Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00

I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.

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

Alissa If we are going to have subsets of ICG members answering questions and engaging in conversations related to proposal development then we had better develop some talking points because we need to be consistent across our conversations... Joe On 9/18/2014 2:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

I agree with Lynn’s point below about responsibility — I actually think one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of that, in my opinion.

Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive list of groups that we meet with. We (and “we” can mean one or two people, or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload, just as we’ve been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on, there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage them as well.

We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said “I’d like to hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups — ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? — to see if they want to talk, we should do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.

I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone from attending or tuning in.

Alissa

On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:

...

Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11 group on "consensus".

I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more reluctant could expound a bit?

Best, Lynn

On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

...

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape.

So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.

I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.

There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.

Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together.

Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity!

Hope this helps

Martin

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All,

Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.

The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):

Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00

I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.

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

---

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

Hi Joe, Agreed. I’m happy to develop talking points about how the IETF process works and how people can engage in the protocol parameters transition proposal development process, and share those with this group. I would still expect an experienced IETF participant to be the person speaking about IETF process, though. For questions about the rest of the transition process, I think we have a good starting point with the slides you produced for the IGF, our charter, the timeline, and the RFP — we could distill those into a set of talking points. Alissa On 9/18/14, 12:13 PM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

Alissa

If we are going to have subsets of ICG members answering questions and engaging in conversations related to proposal development then we had better develop some talking points because we need to be consistent across our conversations...

Joe On 9/18/2014 2:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

I agree with Lynn’s point below about responsibility — I actually think one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of that, in my opinion.

Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive list of groups that we meet with. We (and “we” can mean one or two people, or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload, just as we’ve been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on, there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage them as well.

We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said “I’d like to hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups — ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? — to see if they want to talk, we should do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.

I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone from attending or tuning in.

Alissa

On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:

...

Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11 group on "consensus".

I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more reluctant could expound a bit?

Best, Lynn

On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

...

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape.

So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.

I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.

There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.

Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together.

Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity!

Hope this helps

Martin

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All,

Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.

The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):

Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00

I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.

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

---

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 fully agree that in such meetings ICG members present should be consistently sharing ICG agreed views .. In addition, they should be ready, to the extent possible, to respond to a wide range of cross-cutting questions .. Furthermore, I fully support what Martin suggested earlier regarding developing an FAQ and posting it online .. This FAQ: - may serve as our agreed answers to the listed questions (talking points) - will be available online for anyone having the same question (we won't be repeating ourselves) - will ensure any shared information is consistently shared with everyone else (everyone on the same page - no privileged communities) - may reduce the need for future face-to-face meetings (addressing the tight time and scheduling challenges) - is suggested to include an email address where questions may be submitted, discussed, agreed and answered by ICG members, then added to the FAQ and posted online .. I would hence suggest that we further discuss Martin's extremely useful proposal, hoping that we can implement it .. Kind regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 9:29 AM To: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles +1 with Joe. Anyone from the ICG formally meeting other stakeholder group has to clearly state the hat he/she is wearing. For me, this discussion (and the meetings we are talking about here) is about the ICG and not what the various stakeholder group we represent individually are/will_be doing. For talking to stakeholders about what a specific (operational) group is doing, we don't need ICG approval and we should avoid doing that in the context of the ICG. So yes, it will be advisable for any subset of the ICG members formally meeting other groups to talk about the ICG process to have talking points that represent the whole ICG view. - a. On Sep 18, 2014, at 23:13 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

Alissa

If we are going to have subsets of ICG members answering questions and engaging in conversations related to proposal development then we had better develop some talking points because we need to be consistent across our conversations...

Joe On 9/18/2014 2:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

I agree with Lynn's point below about responsibility - I actually think one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of that, in my opinion.

Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive list of groups that we meet with. We (and "we" can mean one or two people, or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload, just as we've been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on, there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage them as well.

We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said "I'd like to hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups - ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? - to see if they want to talk, we should do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.

I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone from attending or tuning in.

Alissa

On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:

...

Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11 group on "consensus".

I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more reluctant could expound a bit?

Best, Lynn

On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

...

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape. So I'd be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting. I'm less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process. There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly - a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable - we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place. Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we've sewn a credible package together. Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity! Hope this helps Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All, Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes. The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles): Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00 I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda. 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

---

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 agree with Joe, Adiel, Lynn, Manal and Martin. I also support the creation of an FAQ and blog as Joe described. Keith #2 On Sep 19, 2014, at 6:40 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

A FAQ would address my concerns and it should have a flex field for people to ask new questions which we might answer as an addition to the FAQ. Maybe FAQ and blog?

Joe On 9/19/2014 7:18 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:

...

I fully agree that in such meetings ICG members present should be consistently sharing ICG agreed views .. In addition, they should be ready, to the extent possible, to respond to a wide range of cross-cutting questions .. Furthermore, I fully support what Martin suggested earlier regarding developing an FAQ and posting it online .. This FAQ: - may serve as our agreed answers to the listed questions (talking points) - will be available online for anyone having the same question (we won't be repeating ourselves) - will ensure any shared information is consistently shared with everyone else (everyone on the same page - no privileged communities) - may reduce the need for future face-to-face meetings (addressing the tight time and scheduling challenges) - is suggested to include an email address where questions may be submitted, discussed, agreed and answered by ICG members, then added to the FAQ and posted online ..

I would hence suggest that we further discuss Martin's extremely useful proposal, hoping that we can implement it ..

Kind regards --Manal

-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adiel Akplogan Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 9:29 AM To: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

+1 with Joe.

Anyone from the ICG formally meeting other stakeholder group has to clearly state the hat he/she is wearing. For me, this discussion (and the meetings we are talking about here) is about the ICG and not what the various stakeholder group we represent individually are/will_be doing. For talking to stakeholders about what a specific (operational) group is doing, we don't need ICG approval and we should avoid doing that in the context of the ICG. So yes, it will be advisable for any subset of the ICG members formally meeting other groups to talk about the ICG process to have talking points that represent the whole ICG view.

- a.

On Sep 18, 2014, at 23:13 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

...

Alissa

If we are going to have subsets of ICG members answering questions and engaging in conversations related to proposal development then we had better develop some talking points because we need to be consistent across our conversations...

Joe On 9/18/2014 2:48 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

...

I agree with Lynn's point below about responsibility - I actually think one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of that, in my opinion.

Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive list of groups that we meet with. We (and "we" can mean one or two people, or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload, just as we've been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on, there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage them as well.

We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said "I'd like to hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups - ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? - to see if they want to talk, we should do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.

I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone from attending or tuning in.

Alissa

On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:

...

Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11 group on "consensus".

I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more reluctant could expound a bit?

Best, Lynn

On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

...

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape. So I'd be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting. I'm less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process. There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly - a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable - we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place. Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we've sewn a credible package together. Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity! Hope this helps Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All, Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes. The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles): Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00 I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda. 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

---

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

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Alissa, Thank you for your brief I am of the opinion that those ICG member's who representing the operational communities are the front runners for the task before us ,i.e. ICG Members from ccNSO,GNSO NRO ,ASO,IETF After these ICG members other ICG members could meet and brief their respective communities as well as any other who wish to join. We need to be benefited from the expertise of the people. What we should be careful is to provide and share those information that we have some expertise , I have no problem that ICG partly or totally meet with some of the group's in a combined session and not individually . We do not have time to do individual briefing . On the contrary each ICG members from those 13 communities fro which were previously identified before could meet with their respective community and brief then .In fact through that function they discharge their duties and responsibilities . I am not in favour of combined meeting just to talk on issues which either are obvious or have not yet been identified or just talk for talk However, we have an extended open meeting in which those interested people could attend and share their views. It should be noted that there areas which we do not have a clear idea about e.g. ICANN enhanced accountability as the issue has been just raised. Some thing came to my mind from the on going exchange of the views expressed recently and that is " Examining " what do we mean by examining in ICG apart from those operational communities in particular and other 9 communities in general that might be in a position to make some test m what are the scope of testing function. Could we have some explanation from those raising this issue please? Kavouss . 1 *ICG Guidelines for Decision Making 17 September 2014 1. Purpose* The objective of this document is to assist the ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group) to optimize productivity and effectiveness in the process of making decisions. Participation in the decision making process is reserved to the full members of the ICG and hence does not include ICANN Board Liaison, ICANN Staff Liason Expert, or Secretariat. *2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms* The ICG should operate under the principles of transparency and openness, which means, *inter* *alia*, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or transcribed, and Statements of Interest (SOIs), to include any conflicts of interest (COI), are required from ICG members and shall be publicly available. ICG members should make every effort to respect the principles outlined in the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Framework, see http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-transframeworks- principles-10jan08.pdf for further details1, taking into account that this accountability is under full review by ICANN within the global multistakeholder community. If an ICG member feels that these standards are being abused, she/he should appeal to the chair or one of the vice-chairs. It is important to emphasize that expressed disagreement is not, by itself, indicative of abusive behavior. At all times, ICG members should expect and hold themselves to respectful articulation of any points of disagreement. If abuse is demonstrated, the chair of the ICG in full consultation and collaboration with the two vice chairs needs to consider the matter and take necessary action, as appropriate to properly handle the case. ICG members should participate faithfully in the ICG’s process (e.g., attending meetings, providing timely input, monitoring discussions and fully collaborating with each other to achieve the established objectives). The ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions, including through public comment periods, where practicable and appropriate. Public comments received as a result of a public consultation held in relation to the activities of the ICG should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. In addition, the ICG should provide its 1 Other best practices that can be considered include the ‘Statement on Respectful Online Communication’, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf. 2 rationale for including or not the different comments received and, if appropriate, how these will be addressed in the report of the ICG. *3. Making, Revisiting and Reconsidering ICG Decisions* The ICG may make decisions on its public mailing list or during meetings. Meetings are to be conducted face-to-face or through conference calls. Unless it is specified before a meeting that the ICG is intending to finalize a decision during the meeting, the decisions taken at a meeting in which one or more members are absent should provide 7 calendar days for those absentee members to review the decision and provide any input related to it; such input would be considered at the subsequent meeting (physical, by correspondence, or by conference call) and taken into account, if so agreed. For cases where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order for those views to be considered at the scheduled meeting. Should the decision made not be consistent with the views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report/conclusions of the ICG. For cases where ICG proposes to finalize a decision in a scheduled meeting and some members are opposed to the decision reached at such meeting, there should be another attempt(s) to find a suitable compromise. Where that fails, member(s) who oppose should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report/conclusions of the ICG. *4. Methodology for Making Decisions a. Administrative Decisions* The ICG may encounter instances where it needs to select person(s)/officer(s) as applicable for particular tasks. For example, the ICG may need to select secretarial support, speakers for particular events, liaisons to particular groups or the media, or chairs or vice chairs. In some cases, it may become obvious through discussion that all interested ICG members (those who have expressed an opinion) agree on a particular selection. In those cases, a chair, vice chair, or designee may approve a particular selection on the basis of the obvious agreement of all of those who expressed an opinion. In other cases where multiple different opinions have been expressed, a chair, vice chair, or designee may choose to run a vote to make the selection. The selection should be done by a majority vote. 3 *b. All Other Decisions* This section pertains to cases when the ICG encounters instances in which it needs to make decisions unrelated to administrative decisions described in Section 4(a) above; obvious examples are the decision to send the final transition proposal to NTIA as well as other intermediate decisions. The mechanism that allows the ICG to come to a final decision regarding a certain topic is based on the following principles: • The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s) and not decisions related to approval/rejection of the content of the proposals. The ICG is meant to assemble proposals from the various communities. If there is an issue with the subject matter of the proposals, it is not the role of the ICG to redraft them, but rather to return them to the originating communty for further work with guidance as to what issues need to be addressed. • The aim of the discussion should be to reach a conclusion that no ICG member opposes. • Reasons for opposition should be clearly stated, along with specific alternative language which would overcome the opposition, allowing the communities and the ICG, wherever possible, to understand concerns and identify compromise solutions. • The chair will provide a time frame (to be fixed according to the prevailing circumstances) for a given case under consideration, for discussion and consultation needed to address the specific issue. • When such time, or extension of such time, for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections has expired, the chair and vice chairs, in consultation with the members, should identify common ground relevant and appropriate to the issue under discussion and do their utmost to propose possible ways forward. • It is obvious that no single member or a small minority should be allowed to block the decision making process. In other words a situation where a minority would feel it needed to block consensus should be avoided. Counter voices need to be listened to very carefully and a serious attempt must be made to take all concerns into account. If a full agreement is not possible, those still in opposition should be invited to prepare a written explanation of their position that should be published with the decision. See relevant paragraphs below. • Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection (whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of one or more communities) and the attempts that have been made to resolve those objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements that the objection of a majority of an operational community would preclude the ability of the ICG to submit an 4 acceptable consensus proposal. In other words, all stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature from one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements. *c. Designation of recommendation* Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations: • *Recommendation by consensus *- when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. • *Recommendation *- a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report. One possible example in the “Recommendation” category, *inter alia*, could be that a Recommendation could be considered as adopted if at most a small minority disagree by documenting their objection(s), the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by the conclusion have not been overruled, and the consensus sought was inclusive of all ICG communities. The ICG should bear in mind that the consensus that we are seeking must be inclusive of all stakeholder groups: the final proposal needs to reflect that there is broad support for the approach from across the communities, if it is to be an acceptable way forward. Minority views opposing the recommendation should be documented and attributed in the report. *The agreed and fundamental objective of the ICG is to reach at least the Recommendation designation in favor of forwarding the Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition to the NTIA.* In order to examine and evaluate the degree of acceptability of a Recommendation the following method is proposed for consideration, where necessary: i. The chair and/or vice chairs should establish a time frame for discussion about a particular issue. If that time frame expires and new issues are still being raised, the chair and/or vice chairs may extend the time frame for discussion, as the case may be. The above-mentioned time frame(s) should be clearly included in the summary of the discussions. ii. After the group has discussed an issue exhaustively for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the chair and/or vice chairs make an evaluation of the 5 designation and publish it for the group with a clear timescale to review. In establishing timescale, account should be taken of the related community discussion needed. iii. If any justified objection is raised concerning the designation, the chair and/or vicechairs should reevaluate and possibly publish an updated evaluation. Recommendation calls should always be available to the entire ICG and, for this reason, should be published on the designated mailing list to ensure that all ICG members have the opportunity to fully participate in the process. It is the role of the chair, in full consultation and collaboration with vice chairs, to designate that a recommendation has been achieved and to announce this designation to the ICG. Members of the ICG should be given the opportunity to raise objections to the designation done by the chair as part of the discussion, per the methodology outlined above. Any ICG member who believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted should discuss the circumstances with the ICG chair/vice chairs. The chair, in full consultation with vice chairs, needs to carefully examine the case with the view to find a satisfactory solution for the matter through all appropriate means. The conclusions of this discussion should be documented. Regarding approval of draft documents, a document is considered as a stable draft for approval, provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval process is scheduled. i.e CCS 2014-09-18 20:48 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:

I agree with Lynn’s point below about responsibility — I actually think one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of that, in my opinion.

Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive list of groups that we meet with. We (and “we” can mean one or two people, or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload, just as we’ve been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on, there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage them as well.

We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said “I’d like to hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups — ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? — to see if they want to talk, we should do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.

I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone from attending or tuning in.

Alissa

On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:

...

Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11 group on "consensus".

I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more reluctant could expound a bit?

Best, Lynn

On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

...

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape.

So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.

I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.

There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.

Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together.

Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity!

Hope this helps

Martin

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All,

Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.

The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):

Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00

I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.

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

_______________________________________________ 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 Also agree with the idea that we should treat all communities equally and not discriminate or differently treat one communities from the others We are international civil servant and must be totally neutral and forget about the community from which we are representing as we collectively represent all communities, I do not see any logic or rotational on why we should just be engaged with some communities. Kavouss 2014-09-18 21:35 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

I fully agree with Joe. I do not believe that we should meet different group separately and convey some non-disguised and non coordinated message or understanding We should have some general guidelines and scope of what we expect to tell Kavouss

2014-09-18 21:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

...

Alissa, Thank you for your brief I am of the opinion that those ICG member's who representing the operational communities are the front runners for the task before us ,i.e. ICG Members from ccNSO,GNSO NRO ,ASO,IETF After these ICG members other ICG members could meet and brief their respective communities as well as any other who wish to join. We need to be benefited from the expertise of the people. What we should be careful is to provide and share those information that we have some expertise , I have no problem that ICG partly or totally meet with some of the group's in a combined session and not individually . We do not have time to do individual briefing . On the contrary each ICG members from those 13 communities fro which were previously identified before could meet with their respective community and brief then .In fact through that function they discharge their duties and responsibilities . I am not in favour of combined meeting just to talk on issues which either are obvious or have not yet been identified or just talk for talk However, we have an extended open meeting in which those interested people could attend and share their views. It should be noted that there areas which we do not have a clear idea about e.g. ICANN enhanced accountability as the issue has been just raised. Some thing came to my mind from the on going exchange of the views expressed recently and that is " Examining " what do we mean by examining in ICG apart from those operational communities in particular and other 9 communities in general that might be in a position to make some test m what are the scope of testing function. Could we have some explanation from those raising this issue please? Kavouss .

1

*ICG Guidelines for Decision Making 17 September 2014 1. Purpose*

The objective of this document is to assist the ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination

Group) to optimize productivity and effectiveness in the process of making decisions.

Participation in the decision making process is reserved to the full members of the ICG and

hence does not include ICANN Board Liaison, ICANN Staff Liason Expert, or Secretariat.

*2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms*

The ICG should operate under the principles of transparency and openness, which means, *inter*

*alia*, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or

transcribed, and Statements of Interest (SOIs), to include any conflicts of interest (COI), are

required from ICG members and shall be publicly available.

ICG members should make every effort to respect the principles outlined in the ICANN

Accountability and Transparency Framework, see http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-transframeworks-

principles-10jan08.pdf for further details1, taking into account that this

accountability is under full review by ICANN within the global multistakeholder community.

If an ICG member feels that these standards are being abused, she/he should appeal to the

chair or one of the vice-chairs. It is important to emphasize that expressed disagreement is

not, by itself, indicative of abusive behavior. At all times, ICG members should expect and

hold themselves to respectful articulation of any points of disagreement. If abuse is

demonstrated, the chair of the ICG in full consultation and collaboration with the two vice

chairs needs to consider the matter and take necessary action, as appropriate to properly

handle the case.

ICG members should participate faithfully in the ICG’s process (e.g., attending meetings,

providing timely input, monitoring discussions and fully collaborating with each other to

achieve the established objectives).

The ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable stakeholder communities to have

appropriate time to consult on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions,

including through public comment periods, where practicable and appropriate. Public

comments received as a result of a public consultation held in relation to the activities of the

ICG should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. In addition, the ICG should provide its

1

Other best practices that can be considered include the ‘Statement on Respectful Online Communication’, see

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf.

2

rationale for including or not the different comments received and, if appropriate, how these

will be addressed in the report of the ICG.

*3. Making, Revisiting and Reconsidering ICG Decisions*

The ICG may make decisions on its public mailing list or during meetings. Meetings are to be

conducted face-to-face or through conference calls.

Unless it is specified before a meeting that the ICG is intending to finalize a decision during the

meeting, the decisions taken at a meeting in which one or more members are absent should

provide 7 calendar days for those absentee members to review the decision and provide any input

related to it; such input would be considered at the subsequent meeting (physical, by

correspondence, or by conference call) and taken into account, if so agreed.

For cases where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting

and one or more members are not present at that meeting, these members may provide their

views to the ICG in advance in order for those views to be considered at the scheduled meeting.

Should the decision made not be consistent with the views of those absent, there should be

another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the

ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report/conclusions of the ICG.

For cases where ICG proposes to finalize a decision in a scheduled meeting and some members

are opposed to the decision reached at such meeting, there should be another attempt(s) to find a

suitable compromise. Where that fails, member(s) who oppose should be invited to provide the

ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report/conclusions of the ICG.

*4. Methodology for Making Decisions a. Administrative Decisions*

The ICG may encounter instances where it needs to select person(s)/officer(s) as applicable for

particular tasks. For example, the ICG may need to select secretarial support, speakers for

particular events, liaisons to particular groups or the media, or chairs or vice chairs. In some

cases, it may become obvious through discussion that all interested ICG members (those who

have expressed an opinion) agree on a particular selection. In those cases, a chair, vice chair, or

designee may approve a particular selection on the basis of the obvious agreement of all of those

who expressed an opinion.

In other cases where multiple different opinions have been expressed, a chair, vice chair, or

designee may choose to run a vote to make the selection. The selection should be done by a

majority vote.

3

*b. All Other Decisions*

This section pertains to cases when the ICG encounters instances in which it needs to make

decisions unrelated to administrative decisions described in Section 4(a) above; obvious

examples are the decision to send the final transition proposal to NTIA as well as other

intermediate decisions.

The mechanism that allows the ICG to come to a final decision regarding a certain topic is based

on the following principles:

• The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted

proposal(s) and not decisions related to approval/rejection of the content of the proposals.

The ICG is meant to assemble proposals from the various communities. If there is an issue

with the subject matter of the proposals, it is not the role of the ICG to redraft them, but

rather to return them to the originating communty for further work with guidance as to what

issues need to be addressed.

• The aim of the discussion should be to reach a conclusion that no ICG member opposes.

• Reasons for opposition should be clearly stated, along with specific alternative language

which would overcome the opposition, allowing the communities and the ICG, wherever

possible, to understand concerns and identify compromise solutions.

• The chair will provide a time frame (to be fixed according to the prevailing circumstances)

for a given case under consideration, for discussion and consultation needed to address the

specific issue.

• When such time, or extension of such time, for the ICG to consider and attempt to

accommodate objections has expired, the chair and vice chairs, in consultation with the

members, should identify common ground relevant and appropriate to the issue under

discussion and do their utmost to propose possible ways forward.

• It is obvious that no single member or a small minority should be allowed to block the

decision making process. In other words a situation where a minority would feel it needed to

block consensus should be avoided. Counter voices need to be listened to very carefully and

a serious attempt must be made to take all concerns into account. If a full agreement is not

possible, those still in opposition should be invited to prepare a written explanation of their

position that should be published with the decision. See relevant paragraphs below.

• Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small

minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may

include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection

(whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of one or more communities) and the attempts

that have been made to resolve those objections. While consensus of all stakeholder

communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements that the objection of

a majority of an operational community would preclude the ability of the ICG to submit an

4

acceptable consensus proposal. In other words, all stakeholder communities have a role in the

development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of

concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the

ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an

operational nature from one or more operational community would also significantly limit

the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.

*c. Designation of recommendation*

Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG

position as having one of the following designations:

• *Recommendation by consensus *- when no one in the group speaks against the

recommendation in its last readings.

• *Recommendation *- a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is

sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties

have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to

achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to

document their objections for the final report.

One possible example in the “Recommendation” category, *inter alia*, could be that a

Recommendation could be considered as adopted if at most a small minority disagree by

documenting their objection(s), the representatives of an operational community significantly

and directly affected by the conclusion have not been overruled, and the consensus sought was

inclusive of all ICG communities. The ICG should bear in mind that the consensus that we are

seeking must be inclusive of all stakeholder groups: the final proposal needs to reflect that there

is broad support for the approach from across the communities, if it is to be an acceptable way

forward.

Minority views opposing the recommendation should be documented and attributed in the

report.

*The agreed and fundamental objective of the ICG is to reach at least the Recommendation designation in favor of forwarding the Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition to the NTIA.*

In order to examine and evaluate the degree of acceptability of a Recommendation the

following method is proposed for consideration, where necessary:

i. The chair and/or vice chairs should establish a time frame for discussion about a

particular issue. If that time frame expires and new issues are still being raised, the chair

and/or vice chairs may extend the time frame for discussion, as the case may be. The

above-mentioned time frame(s) should be clearly included in the summary of the

discussions.

ii. After the group has discussed an issue exhaustively for all issues to have been raised,

understood and discussed, the chair and/or vice chairs make an evaluation of the

5

designation and publish it for the group with a clear timescale to review. In establishing

timescale, account should be taken of the related community discussion needed.

iii. If any justified objection is raised concerning the designation, the chair and/or vicechairs

should reevaluate and possibly publish an updated evaluation.

Recommendation calls should always be available to the entire ICG and, for this reason,

should be published on the designated mailing list to ensure that all ICG members have the

opportunity to fully participate in the process. It is the role of the chair, in full consultation

and collaboration with vice chairs, to designate that a recommendation has been achieved and

to announce this designation to the ICG. Members of the ICG should be given the opportunity

to raise objections to the designation done by the chair as part of the discussion, per the

methodology outlined above.

Any ICG member who believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or

discounted should discuss the circumstances with the ICG chair/vice chairs. The chair, in full

consultation with vice chairs, needs to carefully examine the case with the view to find a

satisfactory solution for the matter through all appropriate means. The conclusions of this

discussion should be documented.

Regarding approval of draft documents, a document is considered as a stable draft for approval,

provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval

process is scheduled. i.e CCS

2014-09-18 20:48 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:

...

I agree with Lynn’s point below about responsibility — I actually think one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of that, in my opinion.

Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive list of groups that we meet with. We (and “we” can mean one or two people, or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload, just as we’ve been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on, there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage them as well.

We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said “I’d like to hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups — ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? — to see if they want to talk, we should do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.

I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone from attending or tuning in.

Alissa

On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:

...

Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11 group on "consensus".

I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more reluctant could expound a bit?

Best, Lynn

On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

...

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape.

So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.

I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.

There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.

Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together.

Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity!

Hope this helps

Martin

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All,

Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.

The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):

Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00

I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.

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

_______________________________________________ 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 was one of those who raised concern yesterday about having theses separates focussed sessions. After hearing Header’s explanation and reading Manal’s mail I better understand the rational of GAC’s request and will support the meeting with them. My concern (and something we all need to think through) is how we (a) prepare ourselves to sustainably do the same if request comes from other specific groups in case we received more? (b) If we are not able to meet such expectation, we then have to have a well crafted message to explain why we have accepted the invitation from the GAC and will not be able to extend this to everyone. In short either we organise ourselves to attend to requests from any specific group (from ICANN ecosystem or not), or we go with GAC’s only and clearly present it as exceptional case supported by argument such as Header and Manal’s points. By the way it will be good to have the note/recording from the the meeting with GAC published on our web site if we go for the meeting. - a. On Sep 18, 2014, at 15:57 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

Martin:

The reason I am concerned about other communities, is not that they don't have legitimate questions or issues, but that the answers to their questions are useful to other communities - GAC is a bit unique there. I know, for example, that business questions about how to participate are useful to be heard by the operational communities because they are part of the answer to the question as early participation in proposal development should be accomplished through participation in the operational proposal development processes. I would assume the same would be true for a number of ALAC questions - I am sure that they would be relevant to business stakeholders...

Will the Thursday forum be open to those no part of the ICANN meeting? I am also concerned if we only provide such outreach opportunities on the margin of ICANN events we will be leaving out a broad range of stakeholders who may most need interaction with us on how to participate. I am very sensitive to stakeholders who are concerned with the impression or potential that insiders of the ICANN processes have a privileged role or ability to influence the process...

Joe

On 9/18/2014 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:

...

Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape.

So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.

I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.

There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.

Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together.

Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity!

Hope this helps

Martin

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Patrik, colleagues:

Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process.

On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities?

Joe

On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All,

Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.

The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):

Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00

I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.

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

I tend to agree with Milton on this, Governments are a co-equal stakeholder in this process, and we should not create (or fuel) any perceptions of separate engagement. Thanks— J. From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2014 at 10:53 To: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>, ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles I personally think that a special meeting with the GAC is not such a great idea. It caters to their persistent sense of being separate and apart, and the false idea that governments have a separate role in the MS process than other stakeholders. Not to be too blunt, but one gets tired of having to spoon feed them when it is in fact their job to keep up with this stuff. Ideally, GAC members should be encouraged to go to the open meeting and ask questions like anyone else. So in my mind, the purpose of a GAC meeting _should_ be primarily to let them know that the other meeting is happening and urging them to join the rest of the community in attending it. If there is any group that we really need to make special efforts to reach out to, imho, it would be the leaders and prospective members of the CCWG and the ccNSO, who will actually have to develop a proposal. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:57 AM To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles Martin: The reason I am concerned about other communities, is not that they don't have legitimate questions or issues, but that the answers to their questions are useful to other communities - GAC is a bit unique there. I know, for example, that business questions about how to participate are useful to be heard by the operational communities because they are part of the answer to the question as early participation in proposal development should be accomplished through participation in the operational proposal development processes. I would assume the same would be true for a number of ALAC questions - I am sure that they would be relevant to business stakeholders... Will the Thursday forum be open to those no part of the ICANN meeting? I am also concerned if we only provide such outreach opportunities on the margin of ICANN events we will be leaving out a broad range of stakeholders who may most need interaction with us on how to participate. I am very sensitive to stakeholders who are concerned with the impression or potential that insiders of the ICANN processes have a privileged role or ability to influence the process... Joe On 9/18/2014 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in good shape. So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting. I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process. There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place. Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package together. Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement opportunity! Hope this helps Martin From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04 To: internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles Patrik, colleagues: Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process. On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities? Joe On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All, Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes. The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles): Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00 I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

I would also like to support what Heather said on call, as time did not allow for this yesterday .. It's also worth noting that: - Such GAC outreach worked very well with ATRT1 (the one I was involved in) .. - As Joe mentioned below, governments are not accustomed to seeking the floor during open mic sessions and it's important to be aware and sensitive to the different ways different stakeholder groups work .. More generally, - I know time is not on our side, otherwise, I would have encouraged reaching out to all the different stakeholder groups .. Again, I believe this worked very well, was very rewarding and was well-received by the different stakeholder groups at the time of ATRT1 .. It doesn't have to be all members of the group .. It could be the chair and/or vice chair(s) as well as members representing this stakeholder group on the ICG .. - I believe it's important not only to allow participation but also to encourage it and reach out pro-actively .. In all cases, many thanks Patrik for the good news and Alice for your efforts in confirming the extension of the open session .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:04 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles Patrik, colleagues: Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to the process. On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with communities? Joe On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All, Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes. The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles): Thursday, 16 October. Start time: 10:00 End time: 12:00 I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg