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

Renate DeWulf renate.dewulf at icann.org
Mon Sep 29 09:08:18 UTC 2014


Dear Olivier,
Dear all,

I have added Nigel Hickson to the ccwg IG mailing list.

Best,
Renate

-----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: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:33 PM
To: Adam
Cc: CCWG
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ACTION: Los Angeles Meeting / Topics
Needed / Charter Status

Dear Adam,

I also suggested that and Nigel was going to see with Renate about joining
the list.
Kind regards,

Olivier

On 26/09/2014 18:51, Adam wrote:
> How about inviting Nigel to this list and organizing the session together?

>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 1:01 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
>> Dear Bill,
>>
>> I do not know whether this is coincidental or whether the publishing of
the schedule got things moving but Nigel Hickson got in touch with me
yesterday and we spoke this morning. He is in charge of organising the
Internet Governance Session which you mention and is looking for panellists.
>> I told him that the best way would be if he could drop me a few lines in
an email, of the topics he was planning to cover in that session - and I
would forward his email to the CCWG's mailing list, thus we would be able to
respond collectively. As soon as I receive his email, I'll forward it to the
list.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 23/09/2014 15:48, William Drake wrote:
>>> 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
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list 
>> 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140929/4021a835/smime.p7s>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list