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

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 13:14:00 UTC 2015


hi Marilyn,

RP to follow the workshop, not for a remote panelist.

Rafik

2015-04-27 21:40 GMT+09:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>:

> The WSIS Forum sessions are typically accessible via webcast.
> Can I clarify if this was a request to have a remote speaker on the panel,
> which will take more organization?
>
> Do plan to register, even if you are not sure you are able to participate,
> that way, that detail is 'done'.
>
> M
>
> ------------------------------
> From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
> To: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:32:15 +0000
>
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS FORUM AT ITU; ICANN
>
> 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 ‘yeses’
> 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) and…?  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 process….
>
> 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 Olivier’s
> reservation: given the fairly rocky road of ‘globalisation 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 that’d
> help make it resonate, including the meme that’s been fostered in the local
> media and meetings about how ICANN will or should relocate to Switzerland.
> So I’d think it would be better not to look like we’re 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
> didn’t 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
> <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
> it’s 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
> we’re presumably talking about a Panel of 4-6 people rather than a
> Roundtable with 16 participants, many of whom probably won’t be in Geneva
> in May.  Given the Monday submission deadline we’d need to do some quick
> poking around to see who will be here, but at a minimum I’d expect Nigel,
> Tarek, Marilyn and myself would be options.  The more MS and
> internationally diverse the panel is, the better. Nigel or Tarek could
> moderate…?
>
> 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 “ICANN
> Contribution to implementation of WSIS Action Lines”.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20150427/4df34169/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list