[ccwg-internet-governance] Conference Call AGENDA: Friday January 17th at 07:00 UTC

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Thu Jan 16 23:58:59 UTC 2014


Dear Marilyn,

thanks for kicking this off. I'll be using your suggestions for
discussion, perhaps going in one by one, so as not to mix all of the
discussions and be able to progress. The time for loose discussions has
passed, IMHO.

My comments in-line:

On 16/01/2014 21:19, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> Let me kick off my individual thoughts, noting them as just that. 
>
> First, I agree that this group should be giving careful consideration to this topic. It is easy for the Brazil meeting to suck all the air out of the room(s), and all discussions. 

Absolutely. From the discussions I have heard, this WG might well be the
prime source of synchronisation of ICANN input into Brasil. If so, I
would suggest as a first step forward, it might work on a few
definitions which could be part of the set of deliverables for this WG:

- A multi-stakeholder system (what is it? Can this be defined?)
- ICANN's multi-stakeholder system (it is a special type of
multi-stakeholder system) and how does it work?
- Multi-lateralism (as we understand it)

I think that these, as some of the deliverables ahead of the Brazil
meeting, would be very helpful for whomever sits at the table in Sao
Paulo - so they can easily explain in a consistent way what we
understand by these terms.

What other deliverables to we set ourselves for the Brazil meeting?

>
> I would like to suggest that as the Brazil meeting has two purposes, publicly stated, that might also be something to focus on. 

Agreed - so if we manage to define a first set of deliverables for this
WG, then at least we can start a workplan, working backwards, and also
schedule any meeting in Singapore that would benefit from having a F2F
discussion.

>
> We could also discuss whether the suggestion that ICANN has a "day" job and responsibilities, which must be fulfilled with increased focus and improved excellence, and is one participant as an entity, in larger group of IG activities, is a shared view, and what that means for how ICANN engages both in Brazil, but in larger IG activities. 

Agreed. The definition of these responsibilities could be another
deliverable of this WG.
>
> We might also discuss the role of this group in advising and contributing to relevant discussions on these topics during and leading into the Singapore meeting. 

We might probably wish to define how much of the Singapore meeting ICANN
would need to focus on these issues. As you've said, the Brazil topic
has the potential to suck the air out of the room and that's not good
for the rest of ICANN's business.

>
> Finally, if any of the materials being presented. To the five "panels" are relevant to IG and have implications for ICANN's participation in Brazil and IG issues, we. Could discuss calling on ICANN to make such. Reports, briefings/PP presentations public to the ICANN community.

This would probably be a task for Staff, don't you think? Or should we
nominate some "liaisons" into /1net so as for them to act as a two-way
bridge?

Kind regards,

Olivier


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list