[ccwg-internet-governance] Your input is required: Re: Draft agenda - CCWG IG call of Jan 6th at 15:15 UTC

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Jan 7 10:13:41 UTC 2015


Dear Bill,

comments in-line:

On 07/01/2015 10:45, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thanks Olivier.  Maybe it’s the multitasking or I just need more
> coffee this morning but I don’t recall us discussing on the call the
> idea of dropping the WSIS+10 Review as a topic for the public meeting.
>  I also don’t recall much discussion of cybersecurity as an
> alternative.  When the transcript comes I’ll refresh my head, but in
> the meanwhile, what I’d put on the table as a proposal is,

You're right re: WSIS+10 Review, but there was a concern clearly
expressed that this would mean another "update" which is a one way
transfer of information rather than a topic for debate & discussion
seeking input from participants.
Re: the Cybersecurity topic, this was suggested by Marilia. I just
listed the topics which were proposed & wish to collect responses on
these proposals.

>
> For the CWG’s Internal Meeting
> *Topic 4, spun toward how going forward ICANN staff/community can
> coordinate more on ICANN representations/engagement in multilateral
> (ITU, CSTD, WSIS+10, etc) and multistakeholder (NMI, IGF, etc) processes

Ah ha! So you would refrain from discussing this in the public session.

>
> For the Internet Governance Session
> *NMI: Very brief ‘update’ on status followed forward looking
> discussion of community inputs on how it could operate to promote
> widening participation and buy-in, what it could do substantively
> (which could feed into the NMI CC meeting in March)  30 minutes max

Bearing in mind some people/organisations would rather buy out, should
this be a topic of discussion? (buy in vs. buy out)

> *WSIS +10: I would still argue that the UNGA taking up Internet
> governance in a high-level intergovernmental meeting ought to be on
> our radars and we need to make the most of what opportunities for
> multistakeholder input will be provided, perhaps including a text
> submission. (rest if the time, whether we get 75 or 90 minutes)

On our radars yes - but in the public session? We are not going to be
able to draft a text submission out of input in a large public session,
are we? How do you propose we stimulate the audience into a discussion?

Warm regards,

Olivier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150107/4a1149fc/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list