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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sat Dec 17 17:34:30 UTC 2016


What about having our meeting in Copenhagen be an open meeting with a good
time slot, rather than planning a separate HIT?  CCWGs don't generally put
on HITs anyway....

I agree that getting our house in order and our lease extended is our
primary focus.

Greg

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:17 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20161217/6d545482/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/20161217/6d545482/OutlookEmoji--0001.png>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list