[ccwg-internet-governance] [Soac-infoalert] ICANN57 High Interest Topics due by 18 August

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 15 17:43:48 UTC 2016

wow. I actually was confused.
I just meant: our public session. 
Thank for getting me back on track.

> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] [Soac-infoalert] ICANN57 High Interest Topics due by 18 August
> To: marilynscade at hotmail.com; nigel.hickson at icann.org; carlosraulg at gmail.com
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> From: ocl at gih.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:18:48 +0200
> Dear Marilyn,
> thanks for starting the ball rolling. I'll let others address the good
> points you have made but wanted to respond directly to one point you
> have made:
> On 15/08/2016 14:51, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> >
> > b) For our high interest IG Public Forum, as we will have a community
> > that is new to the global activities, perhaps we can suspend our own
> > preferences and focus on what works for our audience. So 50% of our
> > time could be what is going on.  and then 50% focused on a key IG issue.
> > Frankly, I hope it is not about a delay in the IANA transition, but if
> > it is, then so be it and so be us.
> I think we need to seek clarification about these public fora.
> Traditionally, the High Interest Topic sessions were arranged by
> SO/AC/SG/C leadership and topics chosen by them. Thus sessions would be
> run by some mutually agreed moderator, traditionally with people from
> each SO/AC/SG/C community. There is a looming deadline for proposing
> such session. Also, it is quite likely that these sessions will revolve
> around the usual ICANN agendas or IANA Stewardship, Accountability, gTLD
> subsequent procedures, auction funds etc.
> I personally do not think that we should put ourselves on the starting
> blocks for this. As a co-chair of the CCWG IG, I have sensed that there
> is a downright *hostility* shown by some parts of the community towards
> the concept of "Internet Governance" which is not seen as a core
> activity, thus why should we put ourselves in a position where we would
> be competing for space with the usual ICANN insider stuff?
> On the other hand, our Cross Community Working Group has also been
> granted a Public Session plus a F2F session.
> We have had all control of what our Public Session does, and I would
> like to make sure that the CCWG IG's public sessions is not being
> replaced by High Interest SO/AC/SG/C sessions. Nigel, could you please
> confirm? I just want to make sure we're not being pushed into the SO/AC
> high interest session wagon.
> Kindest regards,
> Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160815/26727125/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list