[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 10:19:37 UTC 2015


Dear Marilyn,

comments in-line:

On 07/01/2015 03:31, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> Olivier, Colleagues,
> apologies to have to drop off early. However, I want to be sure that
> item 2 /which I was proposing as an update about the IGF  and what is
> being addressed by the MAG was not limited to strengthening the IGF,
> although should be part of the discussion. that would be a short
> update -- 10 min.
>
> Item 1 should also be an update, and I suggest, strongly, that it be
> provided the principles. I noted in the chat that it is strange to see
> ICANN suggesting that as an international organization, that "they"
> are appointing an "ambassador", a term that is a governmental term.
> However, for an update, I would expect factual updates from ICANN,
> including what the status of their projects at Harvard, Berkman Center
> -- we had a less than responsive report on that at the last ICANN
> meeting, regretfully.  While ICANN is doing a lot of initiating of
> events, and projects, the community deserves a factual update. I
> recall that back in London and LA, we were told that there would be
> outputs from these projects, and I am sure that we all would look
> forward to such reports. They too can be brief, but supported by
> written materials - Written updates and no more than 15 minutes.

Ok - so 2 updates on NMI & IGF. But you mentioned on the call that it
would be better to structure topics to receive input from the
participants in the room rather than listen to updates from staff or
other participants on stage.

>
> Items 3 and 4 do deserve a fulsome discussion with the community.
> Particularly 4, which is the reason that this CCWG was initially
> created...  either focus on only 4, and use examples of the various IG
> meetings and activities and discuss scenarios for what and how ICANN
> can engage with community first, or how ICANN may improve its
> engagement... While I would welcome a discussion re 3, it may not be
> as ripe as item 4.

>From initial feedback, Bill suggested 4 (Coordinating between ICANN the
Corporation & ICANN the Community) to be done during the CCWG's own WG
F2F meeting whilst it is also suggested that this discussion take place
during the public IG meeting.
Does anyone else have preferences?

Kind regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150107/2c57d257/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list