[ccwg-internet-governance] Agenda for the Public Session on IG?
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 16 13:41:58 UTC 2015
Bill, Thanks for this.
I am prepared to brief on the WSIS+10 process, but as it that is not on your list of topics, does this mean that you have cut this out? THAT will take 5 minutes. I thought we agreed on a different approach.
I thought that we had agreed to short update, and then moving into discussion about messages, as Peter's email indicated.Nigel's paper should be posted ahead of time, for Q and A, or proposed changes, Not consuming all of our time. I also think that we should switch the order, and start with the paper.
PAPER? I have no paper to comment on but look forward to having the draft. I hope that you are asking for comments but if you are proposing to use CCWG IG for comments, we need the document now. :-) and if I missed it, which could be, can you resend?
MDate: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:24:51 -0500To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] Agenda for the Public Session on IG?
As the event is less than a week away, we need to get clear on what we’re doing inter alia so Nigel can finalize the place holder text at http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-ig.
If I have understood correctly, there have been two approaches floated. The first, which could be called the path of least resistance model, is to do pretty much what we’ve done in the past. As discussed on the last call, this would be to have a two part agenda. First part is WSIS+10 and I moderate. Second part is tour d’horizon of other developments, Peter moderating, referencing Nigel’s background paper. Topics to be touched upon could include
*Our WSIS Forum session on IANA process*ITU Council and IPP WG*NMI*IGF Best Practice Forum on Multistakeholder Practice*If time allows, misc other, eg. GCIG, UNESCO, GCCS, GIPO, GFCE, WEF, etc.
And the F2F later in the week would discuss whether and if yes what to do about a community input into the WSIS+10 review, i.e. evolving the text we used for the NM meeting.
The second approach would be to dispense with the tour d’horizon and instead begin to discuss the idea of a community input in the public session:
On May 11, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz> wrote:The second half could then be spent presenting a draft document for discussion ( as to principles, not for wordsmithing the text) by those present, being a statement that ICANN can take into the processes leading up to the UNGA in December.
I dont think the text is going to be very problematic - versions of ICANN positions have already been given at the various meetings, and I see no real changes as likely.
Session II would be spent with an inevitable amount of repetition of the background materials, but could move swiftly on to adopting the statement ( some wordsmithing also inevitable).
While we don’t have such a draft document, I suppose we could link our 2014 NM input off the site and direct folks to use that as a starting point for discussion.
Suggest we decide so Nigel can update the session description accordingly. Per previous, I’m happy with whatever gets some consensus.
And for conversation starters, we’d discussed Wolfgang, Marilia, Janis, Marilyn, and Megan and another person from the global South. I know OCL sent out some invites, not sure whether all have responded. But Nigel should list the heads that will be talking on the site as well.
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance