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

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 10:52:32 UTC 2015


Thanks Nigel. I am in agreement with Marilyn about the inflammatory tone of
the last sentence. I think we should replace it with something else.

On 4 September 2015 at 12:46, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Nigel
> thanks for the placeholder.
>
> One thought: So, at our last meeting in BA we introduced the WSIS+10
> processes and tried to describe relevance.
>
> This seems to be phase 2, which is both an update on WSIS+10
> processes/timeline as well as an overview of the IGF 2015, with a focus on
> ICANN's objectives.
>
> To fully utilize the purpose of the CCWG-IG, I urge that the staff present
> the draft of proposed ICANN objectives for the IGF 2015 to the CCWG-IG,
> perhaps in  the form of just a short memo, or perhaps on a call, before
> presenting as a fait acommpi during the CCWG-IG, thus utilizing the
> stakeholders in the CCWG as advisors and information resources.
>
> Taking that preparatory step would undoubtedly be appreciated by the
> CCWG-IG.
>
> I do have a couple of questions about the draft write up.
>
> you suggest that this seasion is organized 'with' the CCWG-IG. I thought
> it was organized by the CCWG-IG, but perhaps I misunderstand.  As it is
> written it seems to be organized by staff, rather than the CCWG organizing
> with the support of staff...
>
> Second issue with present write up:"consider other pertinent IG issues,
> such as calls for the UN to be the platform to regulate all IG issues,
> including role of ICANN".
>
> This is coming across a a little 'inflammatory in tone, and might
> be misconveying the realities.
>
> there are proposals for status quo, proposals for minimal changes,
> proposals for new mechanisms for cyber security/cyber crime [which is not
> about ICANN's role at all], possible proposals [unclear ] about "enhanced
> cooperation" among states ... and some of those have 5 supporting states,
> or 15, or 2, or undefined...
>
> This  public session on Internet Governance issues, organised with the
> CCWG on IG, will discuss the latest developments on the WSIS+10 Review;
> preview the IGF 2015 in Brazil and consider other pertinent IG issues; *such
> as calls for the UN to be the platform to regulate all IG issues; including
> role of ICANN*.
>
> I really urge the session to focus on facts, and awareness. There will be
> the usual 40+ really well informed participants -- from stakeholders, and
> several GAC members who are carrying dual portfolios so well informed of
> WSIS+10, IG implications, and also how ICANN role may be implicated... BUT,
> if you have 800 attendees at ICANN, for instance, only at best 1% of your
> participants will be likely to truly be well informed about the WSIS+10
> processes and implications.
>
> Right now, there is still the question of whether to analyze the original
> submissions, for instance, and whether there are really resources to
> undertake that. IF it is done, it would be useful, I think, but we may want
> to assess what is reasonable to accomplish.  Then, consider how it can be
> used? I originally thought it would be very useful, but time has passed and
> now I wonder if resources are available...
>
> When you hold the session, there will be multiple interesting 'factual'
> resources: the Zero Draft; the submissions/comments on the Zero Draft, and
> even the actual occurrence of the Stakeholder Consultation day. ; the 1.5
> day meeting of the WSIS Council WG, the Internet Public Policy WG/ITU, etc.
>
> Understanding these processes and their implications for IG, and for ICANN
> seems to me to be the best use of the 90 minutes.
>
> As to describing the 'range of proposals' that are being submitted, it is
> fair to characterize them as varying broadly, with some including proposed
> changes .... etc.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
> To: wjdrake at gmail.com; ocl at gih.com
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:14:01 +0000
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS+10 AND IG PUBLIC SESSION IN
> DUBLIN
>
> Good morning
>
> We have to submit on room request for Dublin today; we can ask (given
> dialogue below) for a room for IG public session on the *Thursday @09.30 *for
> 90 minutes.
>
> I have also drafted below as place-holder (has to be included in
> application) though we can amend later.
>
>
> *Session overview *
>
> This tradition public session on Internet Governance issues, organised
> with the CCWG on IG, will discuss the latest developments on the WSIS+10
> Review; preview the IGF 2015 in Brazil and consider other pertinent IG
> issues; such as calls for the UN to be the platform to regulate all IG
> issues; including role of ICANN.
>
> *Session Agenda *
>
>
>    1. Update and discussion on WSIS+10 Review process; including debate
>    on “Zero Draft” Output Paper (to be agreed at UNGA in December) and renewal
>    of IGF mandate;
>    2. Preparations for IGF in Brazil (November); discussion of ICANN
>    objectives
>    3. Other pertinent IG issues
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of William
> Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday 1 September 2015 10:46
> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Cc: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] WSIS+10 AND IG PUBLIC SESSION IN
> DUBLIN
>
> Hi again
>
> I meant to add— in the F2F WG session, can we please devote some time to
> how we want to manage the IGF workshop
> http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2015/index.php/proposal/view_public/163.
>   We’ll have 16 panelists to weave into the conversation while making the
> transition process intelligible to non-ICANNauts. This will be a challenge,
> and we don’t want it to descend into a free for all or insider-ish
> conversation. We will need to work out a systematic structure for the
> narrative that everyone’s on board with, so it’d be good to start on that
> in Dublin and then have follow-up online dialogue to nail things down.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> I agree with all of the points that you have made. The question is room
> availability.
> Nigel -- could you please let us know of the options for Monday & Thursday?
> Thanks,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 01/09/2015 09:59, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I thought what we did in Singapore worked much better than what we did in
> BA — WG meeting Monday, public session Thursday morning, which allows for
> some useful preparatory discussion rather than walking in ‘cold'; and
> horseshoe rather than lecture panel of talking heads.  It might also be
> useful to set a reasonably low limit on the number of conversation
> starters, like 6, and not add to that at the last minute without
> discussion.
>
> What topics do we want to cover beyond WSIS+10?  The misc. grab bag
> portion can be a little hard to manage, so a structure useful…
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing listccwg-internet-governance at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> *Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap *http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>


-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150904/afe3fea0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list