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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 19 22:24:11 UTC 2015

Why not cgi. Br and ICANN update re NMI and also Someone can update from the foray at Davos. 
Like Fadi. But an update re NMI would include three players, right ? 

ICANN bd members .

Cyber security is also strange for this group. Not really prepared for that topic at this meeting. Cld work toward later meetings. 

For this meeting, We shld start w update on WSIS and post WSIS implications for ICANN. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 5:27, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> Dear Jörg,
> my comments in-line:
>> On 07/01/2015 08:20, Jörg Schweiger wrote:
>> Dear  Olivier,
>> ad 1) I'd agree that whilst the Singapore meeting it's just not the right 
>> time to elaborate on the NMI - nevertheless we need to take a look at the 
>> outcome of the first NMI meeting (after Singapore).
> Would you be against just an update? (from staff and/or Wolfgang K?)
>> ad 2) Isn't that a discussion that neededs to take place at the IGF 
>> (first). I'd be interested to hear views on the topic, wondering if this 
>> could be a substantiell step forward for the group.
> It's a chicken & egg scenario - where does the dialogue start? I think
> the discussion there would be ICANN community focussed.
>> ad 3) I strongly doubt that Cybersecurity is best accomodated at this 
>> session.
> OK.
>> ad 4) That could be a result of our work. Do we have anything to present, 
>> yet?
> No we do not have anything to present. I think the idea was more about
> engaging the ICANN-wide debate on volunteer/staff/board interaction
> based on the Internet Governance initiatives ICANN has recently engaged in.
>> With all the working groups that have been set-up recently, I would 
>> present what the group is chartered to do and ask the community what their 
>> expectations are.
> The WG itself has had this discussion in the past and I am dubious that
> we would get any more input that whatever little input we've had so far.
> Everyone is complaining that decisions about Internet Governance are
> being taken by this big black box called ICANN without the community
> being solicited for input beforehand, yet when we have asked in the past
> "what should this WG do?" we've received little or no feedback.
> Indeed, I was under the impression that the WG members had already
> decided what topics it was going to pursue. Do we need more input from
> the community?
> Kindest regards,
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list