[ccwg-internet-governance] Summary of today's CCWG on IG call
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Sun Jan 25 00:04:28 UTC 2015
I am very sorry to hear of your health issues. Please take care of
yourself - the current flurry of IG activities has the potential to
steam-roll everyone's life through over-work.
My comments in-line (coloured in blue to help with identification):
On 22/01/2015 21:14, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> with apologies.
> I was sent to bedrest after being in Emergency Room most of yesterday,
> and failed to hear the alarm, which should have awakened me.
> My comments are in BOLD and CAPs below.
> I DO APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING MISSED THE CALL. AS I mentioned to others
> that I was out of pocket almost all of yesterday, due to an Emer room
> visit, I am fine, it appears, and expected to be able to travel to
> I have several comments.
> Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> we had a low turn-out today, possibly caused by the time at which we
>> held the call.
>> As a result, we need your urgent feedback on the points below:
>> The Agenda centred on the preparations for the two Singapore meetings.
>> /1. Public Session of the CCWG/
>> U-shape room arrangement requested and to be confirmed.
>> It was suggested that since the first and the second topics were so
>> different from each other, we should have two moderators - one for
>> each topic.
> IN SUCH A LARGE ROOM, WE MAY WANT TO HAVE CO MODERATORS FOR EACH OF
> THE TWO SESSIONS.
> ALSO, U SHAPED ROOM ARRANGEMENT SHOULD ALSO ENSURE ROOM ENOUGH FOR
> SEATS IN ADDITION TO THOSE SEATS AT THE U SHAPED TABLE, IF THAT IS
> WHAT IS PROPOSED,. IF YOU ARE PROPOSING JUST THAT THE ROOM SEATS BE IN
> A U SHAPED DESIGN, THEN THE SEATING SHOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED.
Good point re: co-moderators. Perhaps one at the table and one roaming
the room with a hand-held mic?
The room itself is the Sophia room which is very large and will
therefore have ample seating.
>> *Topic 1: Panel discussion with the Audience on NMI & other IG updates*
>> Moderator/facilitator / should be very knowledgeable about NMI to
>> stimulate discussion:
>> - Board member? (as has been the case in prior meetings)
>> - Some one from the NMI Coordinating Council?
>> - Nora Abu Sita?
>> - Bill Drake? (who volunteered on the call)
> I PREFER NOT TO HAVE BOARD MEMBERS OR STAFF MODERATING OR FACILITATING
> THE CCWG-IG MEETINGS.
> BILL WOULD BE EXCELLENT, AND PERHAPS HE CAN BE JOINED BY JORDON CARTER.
I have received very positive responses regarding Bill. I would also be
thrilled if Jordan Carter could be the other moderator.
In fact, I wonder if, for continuity, Jordan could be the overall
moderator for the complete session (Topic 1 & 2)?
> I THOUGHT WE AGREED IN LAST CALL THAT THIS WOULD BE ONLY NMI. AND
> FOCUS ON AN UPDATE AND FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.
>> We also need to give a guide to invitees about the degree to which
>> they should focus only on NetMundial or other IG topics too.
>> Current list of invitees was confirmed as follows:
>> - Wolfgang Kleinwaechter (Special Ambassador to the Initiative)
>> - Janis Karklins
>> - Kathy Brown (ISOC)
>> - Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca (Brazil)
> JANIS KARKLINS IS THE CHAIR OF THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
> OF THE IGF. IF THIS IS ABOUT NMI, WOULD THIS BE SO THAT HE CAN COMMENT
> ON THE MAG'S RECENT ACCEPTANCE OF A LIAISON ROLE TO NMI?
Yes indeed. It is another perspective.
> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WOLFGANG WAS APPOINTED BY CGI.BR, NOT BY
> ICANN. THAT WOULD BE TWO SPEAKERS FROM CGI.BR, WHICH MAY BE OKAY. WHO
> IS SPEAKING ON THIS PANEL TO EXPLAIN ICANN'S SUPPORT AND ENGAGEMENT?
> PERHAPS NORA ABU SITA BELONGS ON THIS PANEL?
Wolfgang is the special Ambassador to the initiative itself and I was
hoping he could speak wearing both hats as a Board member.
Suggesting Nora as ICANN Staff member is an excellent idea.
>> If there are no objections, we'll ask Staff to send out the invitations.
>> It was noted that this was a very short session for 30 minutes.
>> Consider extending to 40 minutes and reducing topic 2 to 35 minutes?
> I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED BY HAVING SO MANY PANELISTS, AND HEARING FROM
> THE COMMUNITY. I THOUGHT WE AGREED TO HAVING THE SECOND TOPIC TAKE THE
> GREATER AMOUNT OF TIME. SO, I PREFER TO KEEP THE TIME TO 30 MIN.
That's 5 people on the panel -- which is really enough if we want
interaction. We need to set strict speaking time limits. Who would you
suggest NOT having on the panel, or intervening from the floor. (side
note: I hesitate to call it the "floor" since this will be a U-shape
room and I'd like to avoid differentiation between "panel" and
"audience" for better interaction)
>> *Topic 2: Relation between staff and the community regarding IG
>> ecosystem topics.*
>> There are 2 issues we need to address in particular:
>> 1. What kind of communication can we put in place to make sure there
>> is a heightened level of awareness about what Internet Governance
>> activities are anticipated from the Board/Staff. How do we make sure
>> we do not have that gap?
>> 2. How are staff aware of the needs of the ICANN community? Is this
>> the environment in which we do that?
>> Head to head with a moderator? [ ie. U-shape where invitees face each
>> other ]
>> Invitees: 3 co-Chairs + Tarek + Anne-Rachel?
>> Session Chair? Perhaps one of the CCWG Chairs?
>> Specific questions?
>> Suggestion: in order to provide a strong starting point to the
>> discussion of Topic 2, Tarek Kamel to write a blog post and could
>> refer to it during Topic 2. This way we save time on describing
>> details and allow more time for discussion.
> MSC COMMENTS: WE ARE BACK TO PROPOSING STAFF TAKING LEADERSHIP ROLES,
> VERSUS THE COMMUNITY AND IN THIS CASE, TWO STAFF? WOULD WE NOT WANT
> THE COMMUNITY TO LEAD, AND ALLOW STAFF TO INTERACT AND DIALOGUE? SO, I
> WOULD THINK THAT HAVING STAFF IN THE ROOM AND RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS
> IS GOOD, BUT NOT PROPOSING THAT STAFF ARE SEATED AS PANELISTS.
The issue of Tarek Kamel writing a blog post and referring to it during
Topic 2 is just a time saving exercise. We have very limited time, so
rather than Tarek explaining how he and his staff see the kind of
communication they would offer, he could just summarise and point to the
blog post for details. In this way we can limit interventions to the 2
minute mark. We also need a balanced panel. 2 staff, with 3 community
members sounds well balanced. I would suggest that you, Marilyn, would
be one of the community members. Jordan could Chair (following on Topic
1). Are there any other volunteers in the community to take an active
leadership role in this discussion?
>> /2. CCWG F2F Agenda/
>> Proposal to consolidate the agenda:
>> 1 - Address the relationship between the Community and ICANN staff on
>> IG ecosystem in this session as well. (Marilyn) Preparing the IG
>> Public Session (if it happens after the F2F session)- (Olivier).
>> Rationale: this CCWG meeting will take place before its public
>> session and this is a good opportunity to prepare the points that
>> should be addressed/discussed in the public session.
>> 2 - Understanding how the CCWG on IG membership is organized
>> according to the Charter (Olivier) – revise to allow observers who
>> haven’t been nominated by SO/AC/SG (Marilyn).
>> Rationale: although this is a process topic, we need to resolve this
>> discrepancy as soon as possible.
>> 3 - Look at calendar of forthcoming activities and plan for the next
>> session of topics until the June ICANN meeting (Olivier) Plan the
>> June ICANN meeting in Buenoa Aires and request from staff a specific
>> slot for the F2F CCWG IG (Marilyn) AND ALSO THE SESSION WITH THE
>> COMMUNITY THAT THE CCWG IG SHOULD ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance