[ccwg-internet-governance] ICANN 54- DUBLIN- IG PUBLIC SESSION ON 22/10

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Tue Oct 27 10:34:08 UTC 2015


Colleagues

Good morning; I hope this might be useful.  This was simply my own take on proceedings; others many well have more authoritative notes.  There will be an official transcript.

Best

Nigel




IG PUBLIC SESSION; DUBLIN; 22/10


The following is a brief note of the CCWG IG Session (outlined below) which took place last Thursday morning.  Unfortunately Bill Drake was not 100% fit so Matthew moderated both the WSIS and IGF 2015 elements.

In summary this was a positive and engaged session which (especially for those new to issues) helped spread a broader understanding of the challenges and issues on the IG agenda until the end of the year.  On the WSIS+10 Review there were some concerns on the process (how open it was to the “WSIS” stakeholders) but also general agreement that the Zero Draft was a balanced and fair document.  Main concerns on substance were on potential of a Summit (and what this could lead to) and the link to IANA Transition.   On the IGF (where there was too little time for discussion) the importance of Brazil (IGF in November) was highlighted (in terms of WSIS process) but also in the assessment of success of dynamic coalitions and the main inter-sessioinal work on Connecting the next billion; and whether this would take us towards a more policy making environment.

Generally the feedback on the session was positive; though clearly the audience we had (around 120 – we competed with the IANA Transition) were rather lost in the large auditorium. Was good to have remote hubs though; we had 3 on line including Pakistan and Nairobi.

Detail

A full record will be posted at https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/thu-ig where agenda and associated background documents are linked to.

1. WSIS+10 Review

The panelists were Konstantinos Komaitis; Marilia Maciel and I

Konstantinos spoke about the overall process and the Zero draft; noting it was a reasonably balanced document; though he did highlight the cybersecurity section as problematic; and he contrasted the openness of the Geneva process as against New York (where he noted issues again this week re role of non-government stakeholders).   Marilia concentrated on the substance of the Zero draft; she was reasonably happy on the emphasis of ICT4D and the SDG though would have liked more on the digital divide. Her main concern was on what was not included re Network Neutrality (only a cursory remark); privacy issues and open standards.

I commented on the ICANN objectives for WSIS review; also agreeing that focus should be on ICt4D; noted that the process in NY seemed somewhat uncertain (though clearly co-facilitators making great efforts); on the IG session noted that issue of enhanced cooperation was clearly going to feature further and probalby be linked to need for Summit – which in itself would be undesirable and counter-productive.

Finally Markus spoke on the contrast between 2003 WSIS (when stakeholders were thrown out of room) and today; where even NY process was more open. He noted there will always be an issue with civil society; as  in main is seen as representing western interests.

In discussion following points were raised:


  *   The issue of a Summit; and how any preparations for it would suck oxygen out of the real IG issues we should be concentrating on; continued debate on enhanced cooperation just a waste of time (was general view);
  *   That the Zero Paper did not mention the Internet of Things (some felt should) or surveillance;
  *   What real effect would the December Resolution make to action on the ground; was this all somewhat of a charade; I noted at least we had a CSTD process to discuss this;  should (it was asked) we have a process where we could update Action Lines;
  *   Whether - In the Internet Governance section – there should be a reference to IANA transition as this was such a key development; we all thought this problematic;
  *   And I also cautioned about mention of ICANN and what we do re Enhanced Cooperation;
  *   Was a call for NETMundial and output to be recognised in draft;


2.  IGF – ICANN Objectives

The panellists were Markus Kummer; Olga Cavalli and Jeremy Malcolm

Olga reflected on the developments that have taken place at IGF and the real progress being made in terms of inclusiveness and diversity; noted how important it was that was resourced sufficiently and asked ICANN to continue and enhance involvement; she urged all to be involved in IGF process whether globally; regionally or nationally;

Markus also reflected on how far we have come in 10 years; was very pleased that now looked certain UNGA would renew WSIS mandate; thought 5 years was probalby reasonable; noted the real value of inter-sessional work and how this would change nature of IGF; thought it could – in time – take on some attributes of the NETMundial approach (in terms of policy recommendations);

Jeremy was also very positive on the IGF; thought it should become the home for a broader range of IG topics; and should perhaps look at some of the trade issues being addressed in the (secretive) TTIP process; also lauded work on dynamic coalitions and hope they would produce policy recommendations in Brazil; will be a real test bed for evolution of IGF; agreed could move towards IGF adopting policy recommendations;

In (brief) discussion we touched on


  *   How the IANA transition may feature at IGF; the Open (Day 0) session was mentioned;
  *   How positive it was that the WSIS Co-facilitators would be present; not least for the Day 1 WSIS+10 Open Session;
  *   The COE noted their resolution on WSIS that endorsed IGF mandate renewal and value of discussion; especially on human rights;
  *   The value of the Best Practice Forums was noted (and especially the excellent work of ISOC in this regard);
  *   Was noted there would be a Netmundial session at IGF; perhaps to help revive some of the energy;
  *   Was call for a stronger MAG; should be involved in whole process; not just the Programme;

In closing Tarek Kamel noted how committed ICANN were to IGF and noted the IANA Transition Session on Day 0 and the ICANN Open Forum.


Best

Nigel




Internet Governance Public Session
This event took place on 22 October 2015 from 09:30-11:00 IST at ICANN Public Meetings in the Auditorium room.
Session Leader(s):
Tarek Kamel<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/leader/tarek-kamel> | Sr. Advisor to the President - Gov. Engagement
Overview:

This public session on Internet Governance issues, organised between the GE Team and the CCWG on IG, will discuss the latest developments on the WSIS+10 Review, including the latest draft UN Resolution; preview the IGF 2015 in Brazil and consider other pertinent IG issues which the CCWG are considering.

Agenda Details:

1. Update and discussion on WSIS+10 Review process; including debate on the “Zero Draft” Output Paper (to be agreed at UNGA in December), http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10; and the potential implications for ICANN; a report of the “Open Consultation” session on 19th October in NY; the renewal of the IGF mandate (which will also be agreed, or otherwise, at the UNGA in December) and other pertinent IG issues;

2. Update on preparations for the IGF 2015 in Brazil and discussion on ICANN objectives for such; http://www.igf2015.br/

3. Other pertinent IG issues

Moderators for Session:

Matthew Shears - WSIS + 10
Bill Drake - IGF

Respondents for both agenda items will be drawn from experts from different parts of the ICANN community.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20151027/53df2726/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list