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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 17 13:48:39 UTC 2015


Is there a document from ICANN staff that I have missed? I apologize. IF so, can you reforward, Renate? and if it is still due to arrive, can we have an estimated time of arrival? 
M

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:23:06 +0900
From: yesunhoo at gmail.com
To: wjdrake at gmail.com
CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Agenda for the Public Session on IG?

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 LeeDept. of Media Arts & Sciences, Korea National Open UniversityDept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents, KNOU Grad SchoolICANN ccNSO Council member


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





_______________________________________________
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/20150617/8a124ede/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list