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

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Thu Feb 13 02:37:05 UTC 2014


Well I supported what was proposed ie. that the meeting be on this topic
I've also asked our councillors - one who is on this list as well to raise it with the GNSO chair


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
________________________________
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Stephanie Perrin [stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca]
Sent: 13 February 2014 02:16
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Public session for CCWG / Singapore meeting

I am the newest and lowliest person on the NCUC, and I am also uncertain as to whether I am observing on this list just because I am the underemployed civil society rep on the HLC...but in true bottom up spirit, I will raise the question with the NCUC folks and get back asap.  Everybody is busy as you know....
cheers Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-02-12, at 8:31 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

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<mailto:louie at louie.net>
To: ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>
CC: marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>; kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 leadership.

Kind regards,

Olivier


On 11/02/2014 03:36, Marilyn Cade wrote:
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<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
> To: ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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 productive.
> ==> please fill the DOODLE: http://www.doodle.com/gd2ppnsx9e98fd4t
>
> 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<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance


--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html


_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance


_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140213/37760b79/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list