[ccwg-internet-governance] Public session for CCWG / Singapore meeting

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 13 01:31:40 UTC 2014

I can't see the justification for having a session in the a.m. led by ??? on IG, that would be different from the discussion during a CCWG led and planned session.  
The chair of the IPC - Kristina Rosette, and Tony Holmes, chair of ISPCP, are on this list. I am the CSG officer for the BC, and have kept the BC excomm informed of this request.
Keith Drazek, Chair of Registries and Michale, chair of Registrars are on the list. 
What about NCUC - Isn't Bill on the list, along with three other reps?
Whom are we missing to check with? 
The Council policy Chair, Jonathan Robinson is not on the list, but each of the GNSO constituencies appointed four reps each to this WG.  I guess I had assumed that the GNSO was covered by those of us on the WG, and assuming we are keeping in touch with our 'homes'. 
I am a bit at a loss on why this is so complicated. 
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:57:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Public session for CCWG / Singapore meeting
From: louie at louie.net
To: ocl at gih.com
CC: marilynscade at hotmail.com; kdrazek at verisign.com; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org

For what's it's worth, it's a YES from the ASO Address Council.  I anticipated this question and already received feedback from the Council.
(Caveat: I have not consulted with Adiel, but I've been keeping the him and the ASO AC up to date via email.)

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

    Dear WG participants,


    The Chairs of SO/AC have held a conference call on Monday. I had
    made the request last week for the CCWG to take over the SO/AC High
    Interest Topic session slot on Monday morning in Singapore and
    therefore followed-up on the call, wearing the hat of the
    co-facilitator of this CCWG.


    Although there is no objection to the meeting, some of the Chairs do
    not know the process by which they should consult their community on
    this prior to providing a formal answer. Indeed, the current SO/AC
    led High Interest Topic is usually chosen through a process where we
    all formally ask our community and revert back to Staff. The CCWG
    request did not allow enough time for such formal bottom-up
    feedback. Also, not all SO/AC Chairs were present on the call.


    It is highly likely that the SO/AC led High Interest Topic will
    indeed be on "Internet Governance", so the content of the session
    might indeed be the same (or not... read later), but the question
    remains on whether this should be SO/AC led or CCWG Internet
    Governance led.


    Ultimately I don't really think it makes a difference. What's
    important is that we get a reply and not a "I don't know... I don't
    know how to ask..." or no answer altogether.


    I therefore ask you all, as people who are most in touch with your
    community, to leverage the bottom-up process and ask the question in
    your community and put pressure on your Leadership group and/or
    Chair to act on this simple question:


    Can the SO/AC High Interest Session be replaced in Singapore only
    with the CCWG in Internet Governance Session? Yes or No.


    For the time being, it's a YES from Patrik Fälström (SSAC Chair) and
    a YES from me (wearing my Chair hat).


    For the time being I (wearing my CCWG IG hat) have worked with ICANN
    Staff to have an alternative open. If Chairs of SO/AC are not able
    to provide a reply in time, then we'll use the Monday early
    afternoon session in the main hall at 13:30-15:00 to interact with
    the community.


    It is also worth noting that there is a low (read: impossible)
    chance that the High Interest Topic could be Internet Governance if
    we also run the afternoon session about the CCWG on Internet
    Governance, so that could be a convincing argument for your


    Kind regards,




    On 11/02/2014 03:36, Marilyn Cade

      Olivier was waiting for a response, and I believe
        also a discussion among the chairs of SO/ACs.

        Also, Olivier, you had asked ICANN staff to notify the four
          reps from each group to designate a single contact to plan for
          the meeting.   

        I have not seen a communication from ICANN staff on that
          request.  All of us will need to have a couple of days to take
          internal consultation.

        We need to start planning in order to have an effective and
          useful session that is supported by ICANN staff, but driven
          and owned by the CCWG.  This is a good example of a community
          generated request -- when many in the community asked for more
          consultation and this group was set up.  I am anxious that we
          not drop the ball on our side. 


          > From: kdrazek at verisign.com

            > To: ocl at gih.com; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org

            > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:09:58 +0000

            > Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Public session
            for CCWG / Singapore meeting


            > Apologies if I missed it...did we receive any reply
            from ICANN about the re-purposing of the Monday SO/AC
            session to accommodate our CCWG-IG community outreach?


            > Thanks and regards,

            > Keith


            > -----Original Message-----

            > From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
            [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On
            Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond

            > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:34 PM

            > To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org

            > Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Public session
            for CCWG / Singapore meeting



            > On 29/01/2014 22:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:

            > > I am sending this email to follow-up with the
            action discussed during 

            > > today's call : to request the meeting planners to
            replace (or 

            > > repurpose )the SO/AC Chairs with Community Session
            (entitled "SO/AC 

            > > led High-Interest Topic" in BA) by the CCWG with
            Community Session on 

            > > Monday in Singapore meeting?

            > >


            > BTW - to be clear, this session is the session on the
            Monday of the Conference, between 10:30-12:00, which comes
            immediately after the opening ceremony.

            > There are several advantages to this:


            > - this comes immediately after Fadi's "update" and in
            Singapore, it is highly likely that a significant amount of
            Fadi's spiel will incorporate updates about the next stop in
            Internet Governance which is the Brazil meeting.

            > - this is a session that's very well attended with the
            ICANN community - so it's a real opportunity to hear from
            the community about the work we will have done thus far and
            to gather their input for our next stage of work

            > - this happens on Monday hence we have a few days until
            our F2F meeting on Wednesday or Thursday (whichever the
            Doodle Poll will tell us) to make our next meeting very

            > ==> please fill the DOODLE:


            > In 2 weeks, I have a call with SO/AC Chairs & will
            let them know of this proposal.


            > Kind regards,


            > Olivier

            > _______________________________________________

            > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list

            > ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org


            > _______________________________________________

            > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list

            > ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org



Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD



ccwg-internet-governance mailing list

ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140212/b5a606e2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list