[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
Tue Jan 20 19:54:15 UTC 2015


Dear Marilyn,

I am sorry, I cannot understand what your comments relate to. We
narrowed down the agenda for the public session and I have sent a note
to the WG mailing list for comment. I'll follow-up in another message.
Kind regards,

Olivier

On 19/01/2015 23:24, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> 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 ? 
>
> Not
> 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

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html



More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list