[ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS+10 AND IG PUBLIC SESSION IN DUBLIN

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Tue Sep 1 00:28:01 UTC 2015


Hi Nigel,

I think the safest option to avoid clash remains Monday. the next question
is the time. my understanding is that wont be a high level interest topic
in Dublin so we get some room here.

Best,

Rafik

2015-09-01 3:26 GMT+09:00 Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>:

> Good afternoon
>
> A couple of issues; on the *WSIS+10 “resource” front*; I am sorry but
> there is only me (so to speak); but more than happy to enter data for a
> share of the responses; and will circulate a “Summary” by end of week.
>
> On the *IG Public Session in Dublin* we need to submit form by 6th
> September (Sunday); so we need to elect a day (Monday favourite….to avoid
> GAC clash?).  I will make sure we have have horseshoe format.
>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> On 20/08/15 09:19, "ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org on behalf
> of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
> on behalf of ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Lynn,
>
> thanks for this comment. As mentioned on the call yesterday - I am not
> aware of the type of staff support on this and unfortunately Nigel
> Hickson is on a break this week. I suspect most of the reviewing will
> need to be done by this WG's volunteers but having a pair of people
> independently reviewing each contribution & peer-reviewing of each
> other's reviews is hopefully going to enhance consistency.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 19/08/2015 17:10, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
>
> Also belaboring what seems to be near agreement,  Marilyn's questions
> (thank you) and the various responses all seem to point to a very useful
> and appropriately scoped document.  As many of you know, we did something
> similar in ISOC for WCIT, and my only question is regarding the
> resources.  Is there staff support for this?  As I said before consistency
> in review is very important, and there is a lot of competition for
> resources.
>
> Lynn
>
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:
>
> At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I want to agree with Marilyn. The
> first round of analysis should be to understand what has been submitted,
> and to identify the "hot button" issues. The second stage should be to
> analyze the hot button issues and reach consensus, or not, on how to deal
> with them. The end result should be clarity on the difficult issues, some
> of which may be real challenges and some of which will be easy to deal with.
>
> Sam
>
> On 15/08/2015 8:32 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>
> First, on list, can we agree on the purpose of the analysis?
> And its scope? then we can formalize the questions to be looked at in each
> submission.
> Second, will we analyze all submissions or only govt and IGOs?
> Personally, I would prefer all but, there needs to be an assessment of
> resources.
>
> How will it be presented/can we agree that this will be a neutral and thus
> defensible analysis so that then it is broadly useful?
> Advocacy by the CCWG-IG, or even ICANN or others can use it as a resource,
> but it is not appropriate, in my view, to take this opportunity of the
> stakeholders interest to villify or criticize submissions.  First,
> understand.
>
> That is what I support. First, understand.
>
> M
>
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to the conference call /
> WSIS+10 Consultation Contributions Summary Table
> To: yesunhoo at gmail.com; marilynscade at hotmail.com
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> From: ocl at gih.com
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:17:52 +0200
>
> Dear Young-eum,
>
> thanks for this. I note positive feedback from Judith Hellerstein &
> Marilyn Cade and was hoping that we'd get more direct feedback during the
> course of the week.
> How would you suggest we fold these criteria into the table on:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m8VTAY-ZpGq896zWn07CCv9DbXN0SilLwPvgZ_ImV0M/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I'm hoping we can finalise the criteria this week so we can get going with
> the analysis next week.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150901/dcec8ca1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list