[ccwg-internet-governance] Suggested Format of Brazil Input

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Sun Feb 16 23:41:10 UTC 2014


Dear all,

please let me summarise and propose the format of our report to the
Brazil meeting:

What type of input are we sending to the Brazil meeting?

Well, there's a format by which our input needs to be submitted by Feb
28. Also, our contribution needs to be rather short and concise
See: http://content.netmundial.br/

For "Section 1: Internet Governance Principles", I suggest sending our
1. Introduction, 2. Definitions and 3. Arguments.

For "Section 2: Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet
Governance Ecosystem", I suggest that our Chapter 4 works.

We can close it off with a strong conclusion.


*Proposed Table of Contents:*

1. Introduction

Short intro with all the bells & whistles thanking the conference
organisers for accepting the contribution.
Also -- an explanation that this contribution was written in a
completely bottom-up multi-stakeholder way involving all of ICANN's
communities.

2. Definitions of the terms we are using

In this section we provide definitions of terms we are going to use in
our arguments, so as to avoid any ambiguity which would bring a
frivolous discussion in Brazil or generate a misunderstanding which
could be used by people wishing to attack the accuracy of our submission

3. Arguments (place-holder name, please suggest another name than this)

These are the explanation of the point of view of this community. Please
draft those as punchy and concise as possible.
At the moment we are all working in small groups in order to draft those
arguments. You'll notice that some are technical in nature (the single
root) whilst others are more "internet governance".

I suggest two sub-sections:

3.1 Technical arguments
3.2 Internet Governance arguments

4. Roadmap Contributions

This is the part of the Brazil meeting which wishes to design a Roadmap
for further evolution of the Internet Governance ecosystem. Whilst in
sections 2 and 3, we are merely stating fact which I believe we can all
agree to pretty quickly (since it is drafted by the best experts in
ICANN: you), Section 4 is going to be a much harder piece of work because:
a. we might not agree with each other
b. we have so little time to discuss it

So let me fire the first shot: what does one mean by a Roadmap? Well,
you can bet ICANN's going to be in the firing line for this and
Internationalisation of ICANN, including the IANA function is going to
be a really hot topic in Brazil. You can already see the European
Commission warming up on this. You know Brazil's also hot. And that's
nothing compared with some other contributions which we've heard at WCIT
over a year ago.

SO -- what's this community ready to propose in the Roadmap?

5. Conclusions

A very short conclusion // I would shy away from repeating the content
in the body of the contribution but would make use of this paragraph to
emphasize our overall message. I'd suggest something very punchy here.

--- end of contribution

My comments: you'll notice that there's going to be a big set of
discussions on "Internet Governance Principles". Seasoned Internet
governance participants will notice that with so many papers having
already been drafted on this, many of which being very academic and
theoretical in nature, the weakness of all of these papers is that none
of them are "operational" in nature. Principles of operation are
unknown... apart from ICANN, where many principles are in operation. So
we should showcase that with facts, hence our Chapters 2 & 3 which
should be factual.

That's all for now.

Kind regards,

Olivier


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140216/f655c5dd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list