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

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Mon Apr 27 12:32:15 UTC 2015


Rafik 

Good afternoon.  I will check on the Remote Participation; I am pretty sure
there will be.  We do ­ I would have thought ­ have some flexibility to
change names etc. 

As Marilyn has noted there will be a number of folks present; though
registration has to be completed in advance.

Best

Nigel 

     

From:  Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date:  Monday 27 April 2015 14:49
To:  Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Cc:  William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>, CCWG
<ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS FORUM AT ITU; ICANN

Hi Nigel, 

thanks, do we have the flexibility to add names later on before the session
(just 3 days ahead!).
is there any planned RP?
 it is rehearsal for us for organizing  possible sessions in other fora and
also for the IGF workshop. it will be definitely a learning experience.

Best,

Rafik

2015-04-27 19:01 GMT+09:00 Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>:
> 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 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150427/61b40f58/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/20150427/61b40f58/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list