[ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS FORUM AT ITU; ICANN

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Mon Apr 27 10:01:40 UTC 2015


Bill and colleagues

Good morning to you all; nothing baked in  Geneva; in fact a bit dull today.

Have all I need to go ahead; as you say response on list to ideas you and
Olivier crafted was very positive. Tarek has agreed to moderate session.

Best

Nigel 

 

From:  William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Date:  Monday 27 April 2015 11:52
To:  Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Cc:  Chris Buckeridge <chrisb at ripe.net>, CCWG
<ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS FORUM AT ITU; ICANN

Hi Nigel 

Unless you folks in the Geneva office had another concept baked and ready to
go, the need to submit something today and the half dozen or so Œyeses¹ to
repurposing the IGF proposal would seem to suggest proceeding on that basis.

Do you need to send a complete package today with panelist names, or just
the description?  

Off the top of my head, available bodies include:

*Geneva-based staff: Nigel, Tarek, Anne-Rachel

*Other locals: Markus (Board), Konstantinos (ISOC), myself (NCUC).
Semi-local: Thomas (GAC).

*Visitors we know will be here: Marilyn (BC) andŠ?  Chris, numbers people =
?  

Obviously we'd need both a reasonable stakeholder group/geo/gender mix and
folks who are or can get substantively up on the transition processŠ.

Cheers

Bill



> On Apr 27, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Happy to participate.
> The Scheduled time is an important item, as well. I will look at the full
> agenda again.
> 
> But, can we also find out from this list who will be at WSIS Forum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
> To: h.raiche at internode.on.net; wjdrake at gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 21:35:53 +0000
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS FORUM AT ITU; ICANN
> 
> Colleagues 
> 
> Good evening; have been reading this constructive dialogue; have until
> tomorrow (around this time) to put in bid; personally think idea would be
> excellent (and a great dress rehearsal for IGF). We can put names down as Bill
> has suggested (and suspect we can add nearer time).
> 
> For clarity the session is time for Thursday (28th) at 16.45.
> 
> Best
> 
> Nigel 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> Date: Sunday 26 April 2015 06:27
> To: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Cc: CCWG <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS FORUM AT ITU; ICANN
> 
> This does make a lot of sense.  But I also agree with Olivier¹s reservation:
> given the fairly rocky road of Œglobalisation of ICANN to date, will the
> session be a positive one, or one where lots of shall I say less than clean
> laundry is washed?
> 
> Just a thought
> 
> Holly
> On 25 Apr 2015, at 6:07 pm, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi 
>> 
>> Olivier raises a valid concern.  While the cluster of activities often
>> referred to as ICANN globalization‹transition, offices/staff around the
>> world, expanding and diversifying participation, etc‹need to be raised, if
>> this is the framing of the whole event one can easily imagine a line of
>> interventions from the floor that fixates on the limitations thereof.
>> Indeed, as a Geneva denizen who attends a lot of IG events and has done
>> multiple WSIS Forum sessions, I would predict that the first hand to go up
>> would be from a certain ex-WCIT maestro who would merrily problematize this.
>> The critique likely will be made irrespective of when and how such issues are
>> addressed, but setting globalization as the overarching theme would provide a
>> fatter target. Bear in mind too the wider context that¹d help make it
>> resonate, including the meme that¹s been fostered in the local media and
>> meetings about how ICANN will or should relocate to Switzerland.  So I¹d
>> think it would be better not to look like we¹re trying to dispense kool aid
>> and oversell‹stick to the facts and be prepared to acknowledge limitations.
>> 
>> An option to consider: People may recall that we talked about whether the
>> CCWGIG should submit an IGF workshop proposal.  While that conversation
>> didn¹t fully blossom, Olivier and Jordan did submit proposal No. 163
>> Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance -IANA Stewardship, described thusly:
>> 
>> The transition of Stewardship of the IANA Contract from the US to the Global
>> Community is, arguably, this year's most significant change for the Internet.
>> This session (which will not focus on the substance of the debate or on any
>> transition proposal) will provide behind the scene insights from participants
>> in the IANA Stewardship Transition; including:
>> 
>> - how the bottom-up multistakeholder model has been used to make tough
>> operational decisions that will affect the whole Internet
>> - how initial positions held by stakeholders were examined
>> - how these positions evolved in the course of discussions, both on-line and
>> in face to face meetings
>> - the lessons to be learnt for other Internet Governance issues from the
>> experience of participants in this process?
>> 
>> The session will include personal insights from community members who started
>> out with very diverse, conflicting views which reflected the views of their
>> Community, finally finding consensus in building together the best solution
>> for the operational stability and continuity of the Internet.
>> This session will seek to demonstrate the maturity of the multistakeholder
>> model of governance; relevant - not least - in the forthcoming UNGA
>> discussion on the WSIS+10 Review.
>> Participants (in a roundtable format) will be drawn from across the Community
>> including representatives from ISOC, the IETF and the RIRs.
>> The Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance is a formal body
>> within the ICANN Community Structure drawing membership from nearly all of
>> the different Constituency bodies.
>> (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275)
>> 
>> Why not simply do the same thing at the WSIS Forum?  There are arguably
>> several advantages:
>> 
>> *It'd be the path of least resistance since we already have a text.
>> 
>> *It'd be interesting to use the WF to preview/practice the IGF session (if
>> it¹s approved) and see how the discussion evolves similarly/differently in
>> the two venues with their respective audiences.  I did this in 2011,
>> organized parallel WF and IGF sessions on Institutional Choice in Global
>> Communications Governance, and it proved to be rather instructive.
>> 
>> *Bearing in mind the concerns raised above, focusing on the MS process
>> followed in the transition would be a propitious framing in the particular
>> institutional/discursive context of this event.
>> 
>> The line-up of speakers would be different from their IGF proposal because
>> we¹re presumably talking about a Panel of 4-6 people rather than a Roundtable
>> with 16 participants, many of whom probably won¹t be in Geneva in May.  Given
>> the Monday submission deadline we¹d need to do some quick poking around to
>> see who will be here, but at a minimum I¹d expect Nigel, Tarek, Marilyn and
>> myself would be options.  The more MS and internationally diverse the panel
>> is, the better. Nigel or Tarek could moderateŠ?
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this Nigel. All - please spend some time over the week-end
>>> thinking about this.
>>> 
>>> I do think that the proposed topic is both of interest with everyone in the
>>> wider Internet Governance space and also highly topical right now. The only
>>> concern is that at the moment I cannot see any "Globalisation of ICANN" when
>>> it comes to IANA Stewardship transition. In fact, I cannot see any
>>> Globalisation of ICANN this year that goes further than any plans that were
>>> already in place prior to the IANA Stewardship transition proposals.
>>> As a result, with such a title, are we just not setting the session to be
>>> criticised openly, as in stepping into a shooting range?
>>> 
>>> Kindest regards,
>>> 
>>> Olivier
>>> (own views)
>>> 
>>> On 24/04/2015 08:36, Nigel Hickson wrote:
>>>> Colleagues 
>>>> 
>>>> Good morning; on the CCWG-IG call yesterday we discussed the opportunity
>>>> for the WG to be involved in a Workshop Session at the WSIS Forum hosted by
>>>> ITU later May (see https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/)
>>>> 
>>>> A placeholder for a Session was made and ITU have issued a slot for
>>>> Thursday; 28th April at 16.45 until 18.15 (see
>>>> https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/269) on ³ICANN
>>>> Contribution to implementation of WSIS Action Lines².
>>>> 
>>>> We have a ability to amend / add to the description of this Workshop and on
>>>> Call yesterday a suggestion was made to discuss Globalisation of ICANN,
>>>> including the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>>>> 
>>>> On behalf of co-chairs would welcome views on scope and format of Workshop
>>>> of Session.  We have a deadline of close (23.00 UTC) on Monday 27th April
>>>> to submit to ITU (see form at
>>>> http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Organizers/Add)
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> 
>>>> Nigel 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150427/b452d59a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150427/b452d59a/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list