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

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Tue Sep 1 07:32:03 UTC 2015


Hello all,

Monday sounds indeed best. We had more topic clashes later in the week
for our F2F meeting. Horseshoe format worked pretty well so let's have
it again, yes.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 01/09/2015 02:28, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>     Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
>     <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>     ocl at gih.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>                     <mailto:yesunhoo at gmail.com>;
>                     marilynscade at hotmail.com
>                     <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>                     CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>                     <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>                     From: ocl at gih.com <mailto: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
>                     <tel:%2B1%20613-476-0429> cell: +1 416-816-2852
>                     <tel:%2B1%20416-816-2852>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 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
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             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
>
>
>         -- 
>         Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>         http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150901/ceec7cd9/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list