[ccwg-internet-governance] ICANN58 Block Schedule and High Interest Topic

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Sat Dec 17 17:16:38 UTC 2016


Actually, not doing a HIT is not hiding away . Not doing a HIT can lead to
directing our resources to what should be done. For example, Nigel drafted
a statement for CSTD on enhanced cooperation. Did we collaboratively come
up with a document that he could use? no. Did we even discuss what we want
to do with CSTD EC or whether we don't want to do anything? no.  People
 spent way too much time on organizing the HIT last time as many others
did. It was a great discussion. But what was the follow up? nothing. Please
don't impose your interpretation upon us, we don't want to hide away but
make things better for ccwg-ig and make it as it should be.

On 17 December 2016 at 12:02, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

> sorry, attacked... not attached. too many arthritis challenges to typing.
> TOOOO old challenges.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <
> ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marilyn Cade <
> marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 17, 2016 11:56 AM
> *To:* James Gannon; farzaneh badii
> *Cc:* CCWG
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ICANN58 Block Schedule and High
> Interest Topic
>
>
> [image: 😊]
>
> I beg to disagree, but that is no surprise.
>
>
> When attached, running away from a challenge is not the best strategy.
>
>
> We are a legitimate CCWG, after all, so let's address both challenges.
>
>
> Are we saying that we are not legitimate? so we are afraid of the
> questions being asked?
>
>
> I doubt that.
>
>
> I have seen this over and over. Someone challenges us. so we start
> withdrawing and hiding away.
>
>
> In my view,  we are not ashamed or apologizing for the work we have done,
> and can do.
>
>
> Right?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 17, 2016 11:49 AM
> *To:* farzaneh badii; Marilyn Cade
> *Cc:* CCWG
> *Subject:* RE: [ccwg-internet-governance] ICANN58 Block Schedule and High
> Interest Topic
>
>
> I agree with Farzi here from the peanut gallery, I don’t think now is the
> time for the CCWGIG to be putting effort in the area of creating HITs
> rather than focusing on what should be its primary task right now.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-internet-
> governance-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *farzaneh badii
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 17, 2016 3:52 PM
> *To:* Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* CCWG <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ICANN58 Block Schedule and High
> Interest Topic
>
>
>
> I really don't think it's a good idea to have a HIT for Copenhagen. It
> takes our attention away from making ccwg ig relevant and it took a lot of
> time and effort last time to have a good session. I think resources should
> be directed towards making the ccwg ig a relevant active ongoing ccwg. Not
> a one session show. Let's have a working session instead of a HIT. If we
> want to inform people about igf and the like we can do it in out face to
> face meeting.
>
>
>
> On 17 Dec 2016 09:50, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know that some hate the idea of a round up, but IGF2016 and ICANN's
> continued engagement in IG meetings - such as IGF, CSTD, ITU WSIS and IPP;
> ECOSOC HLPF, WSIS Forum -- to me are an interesting discussion -- as a town
> hall - with the community.And, we should also assume some responsibility
> for explaining the SDGs and why ICANN has a role to play, alongside all
> other stakeholders.
>
>
>
> Something like: consultation for ICANN's future engagement in the IG
> landscape and contributing to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals,
> within the mandate of ICANN. ICANN is a key player in the larger IG
> ecosystem, working within its mandate, but recognizing that it influences,
> educates, and contributes to the broader IG debates and policy discussions,
> along side other stakeholders.
>
>
>
> I think this is important to ensure that the Board WG, and the CEO and
> staff, hear from the broader community.
>
>
>
> I have no idea how many members of the ICANN community itself attended
> IGF2016.
>
>
>
> I am trying to do a "count" for the IGF-USA and the NRIs to identify the
> broader attendance, just for informational purposes.
>
>
>
> We could treat this like a true town hall again, with 4-5 roving mikes,
> something like was done at the WSIS+10/IG and SDG and prepare an outcome
> statement to be then circulated more broadly for public comment.
>
>
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <
> ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 17, 2016 4:42 AM
> *To:* internet >> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> *Subject:* [ccwg-internet-governance] ICANN58 Block Schedule and High
> Interest Topic
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> the draft block schedule for ICANN 58 is out already. (see attached)
>
> Please see the information on the HITs from the last two ICANN Meetings
> below just received from Meetings staff.
>
>
>
> *ICANN56 (Policy Forum)  |  Helsinki*
>
> *Headcount*
>
> 1
>
> Cross-Community Session: Next Generation Registration Directory Services
>
> 215
>
> 2
>
> Cross-Community Session: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
>
> 208
>
> 3
>
> Cross-Community Session: Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All
> gTLDs
>
> 190
>
> 4
>
> Cross-Community Session: Country and Other Geographic Names Forum
>
> 182
>
> 5
>
> ICANN56 Wrap Up & Planning Ahead for ICANN57
>
> 149
>
> 6
>
> Cross-Community Session: Workload Scheduling and Management
>
> 109
>
> 7
>
> Cross-Community Session: Charter for the CCWG on Auction Proceeds
>
> 101
>
> 8
>
> Cross-Community Session: Draft Framework of Principles for Future CCWGs
>
> 65
>
> *ICANN57(AGM) |  Hyderabad*
>
> *Headcount*
>
> 1
>
> High Interest Topics session: Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs
>
> 338
>
> 2
>
> Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives
>
> 261
>
> 3
>
> DNS and Content Regulation  NCUC Group
>
> 197
>
> 4
>
> Exploring the Public Interest Within ICANN's Remit
>
> 190
>
> 5
>
> High Interest Topic session: Underserved Regions in ICANN
>
> 166
>
> 6
>
> Q&A with ICANN General Counsel on the legal advice that ICANN receives &
> how that supports the ICANN mission
>
> 132
>
> 7
>
> How to do outreach within each SO/AC
>
> 119
>
> 8
>
> Internet Governance Public Session
>
> 101
>
>
>
> You'll notice that our Internet Governance Public Session was the least
> attended session of the High Interest Topics. That said, it was late in the
> day, thus would have lost headcount.
>
> The deadline for Hit Interest Topic Session proposals is on Friday 23rd
> Dec 2016, so we need to file a request this week. Any suggestions?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161217/13d960c2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OutlookEmoji-?.png
Type: image/png
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20161217/13d960c2/OutlookEmoji--0001.png>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list