[ccwg-internet-governance] Edits to the Initial Draft prepared by Staff to support the CCWG-IG

Peter Dengate Thrush barrister at chambers.gen.nz
Sun Jun 21 01:24:30 UTC 2015


Nigel 
An excellent paper - thank you very much.
One is always surprised - when its all laid out like this, just how much is going on. Collating and briefly synthesising all of these activities is a great piece of very useful work.

I also appreciate Marilyn’s edits - more good detail and supporting/explanatory material.Thanks!

What may not be quite clear after reviewing this is what the areas of debate and dispute actually are, and why this topic is important to the ICANN community. That of course will be the job of the session here in BA - to give the relevance to ICANN and lead on to what if anything ICANN participants can or should be doing about it.

I am now in BA, and will be working tomorrow on the session. If schedules permit, perhaps those of us involved in the session could get together briefly during the day.
I have a slot from 4 to 5 pm tomorrow ( Sunday) and would be happy to catch up with any of the WG members then.


Looking forward to catching up with everyone here soon!

regards


Peter 




> On 19/06/2015, at 1:47 am, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I applaud the great initial draft that staff have prepared, and offer some edits, some of which are factual corrections that need to be incorporated.
> 
> Others are elaborations, and of course, ICANN staff may prefer to not accept, and I am fine with that!
> 
> VERY useful backgrounder! 
> 
> 
> Also, Nigel, can I ask you whether,  routinely, all of the regional UN organizations, AND  UNCTAD/CSTD, UNESCO, WIPO, and ITU are all invited to the ICANN meetings?
> 
> I guess I always thought they were, but in many cases, entities need formal invitations. 
> 
> 
> From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
> To: marilynscade at hotmail.com; yesunhoo at gmail.com; wjdrake at gmail.com
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Agenda for the Public Session on IG?
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:02:14 +0000
> 
> Marilyn cc as above 
> 
> Good morning (from BA); please see attached; as sent to Chairs yesterday; we can make minor changes before printing etc for session; 
> 
> Many regards 
> 
> Nigel 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
> Date: Wednesday 17 June 2015 10:48
> To: Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo at gmail.com <mailto:yesunhoo at gmail.com>>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
> Cc: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Agenda for the Public Session on IG?
> 
> 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 <mailto:yesunhoo at gmail.com>
> To: wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto: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 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 <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Nigel
> 
> On Jun 16, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ ccwg-internet-governance mailing list ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance><ICANN briefing paper - MSC - ICANN activities re WSIS and IGn- BA.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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/20150621/aa3baf43/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list