[ccwg-internet-governance] Agenda for the Public Session on IG?

Young-eum Lee yesunhoo at gmail.com
Wed Jun 17 03:23:06 UTC 2015


All,

Thanks for your input. My understanding of the public session, based on the
calls and the previous messages is as follows.

First, we agreed that we would have a relatively lengthy discussion
regarding the WSIS review. This is where Bill would moderate and Marilyn,
Marilia and others would present their observations.

Second, we need to try to get a feel of the 'community consensus' on future
IG issues and Peter would lead. The second part could start with a brief
review of the draft document by Nigel touching on topics related to other
global events but that we would mainly discuss future IG principles and
either our Netmundial submission or other ICANN public statements could be
used as basis.

I think the confusion regarding the second session is because the following
issues were not clearly differentiated.

- other 'events' oriented discussion vs. IG principles oriented discussion
- try to come up with ICANN position vs. 'community feeling' of IG issues
- use our Netmundial submission vs. use the various ICANN statements made
in other fora.

- kind regards,
- Young-eum.



Young-eum Lee
Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National
Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/>
Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU
Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/>
ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member
<http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm>


On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:32 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Nigel
>
> On Jun 16, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Bill
>
>  Good afternoon.  While clearly up to colleagues on approach we do owe it
> to audience to at least discuss WSIS review as that is what was on draft
> agenda.
>
>
> Which is why my message repeated my understanding of the prior calls that
> this is to be the first half of the session.
>
> Also several here at UK IGF have said how looking forward to discussion on
> IG issues.
>
>
> Me too, so we should decide which and how, if we haven’t.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Jun 2015, at 14:24, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi
>
>  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.
>
>  Best
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150617/49f8c6b9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list