[ccwg-internet-governance] ACTION: Los Angeles Meeting / Topics Needed / Charter Status

William Drake wjdrake at gmail.com
Thu Sep 25 17:16:32 UTC 2014


I’d think this should come from our co-convenors

BD

On Sep 25, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> Have you asked them?
>  
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://www.blacknight.press/
> http://www.technology.ie/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Social: http://mneylon.social
> -------------------------------
> 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 [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:48 PM
> To: Marilyn Cade
> Cc: CCWG
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ACTION: Los Angeles Meeting / Topics Needed / Charter Status
>  
> Hi
>  
> Like everyone else I’m sure I notice that the schedule is up today, and there’s ye ole Internet governance session, again being planned by staff I suppose.  Didn’t we say before that this is something the community should be doing via the CWG?  Seems an appropriate role...
>  
> Anyway
>  
> On Sep 21, 2014, at 9:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> My apologies to miss the call. 
>  
> NETmundial Initiative:   am not sure what the question is about being involved with the NETmundial Initiative?
> My understanding is that it is evolving, Look forward to any further news from WEF 
>  on any changes in the Initiative, based on input they have
> been receiving.  I do support Bill's request that disclosure by any of us engaging in the Initiative disclose that, and what ever role is being played.
>  
> But, I first have a question about what we would discuss in this WG: 
>  
> Do you mean that the role that ICANN CEO, Board, and staff are taking in the NETmundial Initiative 
> and how that aligns with the views of the broader community regarding ICANN's initiating and driving
> IG initiatives, funding, etc?
>  
> It’s not clear how deeply ICANN will be involved going forward.  In any event, WEF will be putting out new information within the week they say. Whether the NMI is something that this CWG should be particularly concerned about depends on whether “the community” per se wishes to interface with it in a collective cross-comm way.  The idea is that there will be a Steering Committee to oversee the projects/platform and maybe a working group below that that’s more hands on.  Then there will be an open online platform for people to provide inputs on the projects, or to propose new ones.  One imagines that various business, civil society and technical community groupings will provide inputs, and perhaps also actual bodies (i.e. civil society is providing names for the CS people to be on the SC).  Given this, does the CWG have a distinctive role to play?   If there were to be any inter-SG coordination on interfacing with the initiative, one could argue it should have been 1NET.  But 1NET may be on its last legs...   
>  
> Might be worth talking a bit about this but not have it take over the meeting.
> 
> 
>  
> I understand that Fadi is speaking at a special ICANN organized event tomorrow in Geneva for Governments and IGOs. Perhaps his speech will also be illuminating. Undoubtedly it will be posted on the ICANN website. 
>  
> Think that was yesterday, I missed it due to teaching.  The invite letter was a site to behold.
> 
>  
> 2. Disposition of ICANN Funding to IG 'hotspots' - should we change this to what is the role of this CCWG in commenting on Disposition of ICANN Budget or excess funds in IG areas?
> Perhaps it is good to start with an understanding of the last year's budget expenditures on IG activities,
> including NETmundial, etc. and this year's proposed expenditures. I assume that the five Panels 
> and NETMundial all fit into an overview of how ICANN is supporting IG activities. However, I am not sure 
> that this CCWG is responsible for budget oversight. :-) Only that it is important to understand what ICANN
>  is doing in IG already, and I when there is consensus, to offer guidance to the Board, CEO and Senior Staff.
>  
> Fadi says he’s announcing a new and limiting model for non-ICANN budgetary expenditures in LA.  
>  
> I understand that many people have concerns about this, but personally am not sure that the CWG on IG is necessarily the best place to be dealing with budgetary oversight.
> 
>  
> The question of ICANN's handling of excess funds, wherever they come from, may have to be taken up in a different 
> manner, but definately should have community participation.  Some of us participated in the development of an external 
> foundation approach back in the days when there was examination of the auction of the single letters in .com and .net.
> That proposal was initially drafted by me, but had input from several CS participants. It insisted on an arms length 
> relationship from ICANN, and established categories of activities-- all focused on capacity building, participation in ICANN
> and related entities, and a significant contribution to the IGF Trust Fund. I mention it only as an example of various ideas in the past
> about how to deal with funds that are not part of ICANN's core budget. 
>  
> The long needed budget Working Group is a better place to take up more detailed ICANN Budget oversight, of course.  This CCWG would 
> only opine on IG focused funding, right? 
>  
> I do not consider this WG the right place to address the question of ensuring that ICANN's Not for Profit status be protected, but the Board and perhaps the 
> Senior staff may have different concepts of what activities and events fall inside ICANN, what fall outside ICANN but ICANN should support, and what are in 
> a sort of middle ground where more alignment is needed between ICANN initiatives and community concerns. And, what is clearly not within ICANN's 
> scope.  I would put infrastructure funding of networks in the latter, for example. :-) BUT, the community might strongly support support to training initiatives 
> for ISPs in developing countries that build capacity in DNS techniques, encourage participation in the regional RiRs, provide training on universal acceptance of gTLDs, etc. etc. So, I think that our discussions have to be more informed.  
>  
>  
>  
> 3. Charter Discussion
>  
> It’d be good to resolve this.  Are groups proceeding with approvals?  Or is someone proposing a change that would require us backtracking and re-doing everything?
> 
>  
> Adding in 4 as a possiblity: We prepared advise to the CEO and staff and Board for NETmundial. Shouldn't we pull that out and 
> assess how well our advice was accepted?  
>  
> Sounds like a reasonable thing to do
> 
>  
> 5. Looking at the Strategic Plan for its implications for IG activities and role for ICANN might also be a good work item for this CCWG, 
> to then take back into the communities the importance of engagement.
>  
> Marilyn Cade
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Bill
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > From: wjdrake at gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:10:35 +0200
> > To: ocl at gih.com
> > CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ACTION: Los Angeles Meeting / Topics Needed / Charter Status
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Sep 19, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear CCWG on IG participants,
> > > 
> > > We just completed our conference call and its recording is linked from
> > > the agenda page on https://community.icann.org/x/uA3xAg .
> > > 
> > > 1. In preparation for the LA meeting, would any WG participants please
> > > be so kind to identify whether they are involved with the NetMundial
> > > Initiative? This is likely to be one of the topics for discussion at the
> > > face to face meeting in LA.
> > 
> > I have been. They’ll be updating on various later this week.
> > > 
> > > 2. Other topics proposed:
> > > - ICANN expenditure (which includes auction proceeds etc.)
> > > - review of the various Internet Governance Hotspots
> > > 
> > > Since many people could not make it to the call, could you please let us
> > > know of other topics you would like to see discussed at our F2F meeting
> > > in Los Angeles?
> > 
> > Interface/engagement with the wider community
> > > 
> > > 3. Charter discussions
> > > After today's conference call, I have sent another email to SO & AC
> > > Chairs to enquire about the Charter's status in the various SO/ACs. I
> > > shall relate back to the WG as responses are received, but will urge you
> > > all to check with your own constituency's leadership on where this is
> > > going. The summer has been busy with matters of NTIA Stewardship
> > > Transition & Accountability Issues, but we should not forget this thread
> > > is also important.
> > 
> > I suspect this may eat a good chunk of the meeting…
> > 
> > Bill
> > > 
> > > Kindest regards,
> > > 
> > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> > > CCWG on IG co-facilitator
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> > > ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
> > 
> > ***********************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > International Fellow & Lecturer
> > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
> > ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> > www.williamdrake.org
> > ***********************************************
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> > ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>  
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140925/91208d7a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list