[ccwg-internet-governance] Proposed Agenda for CCWG IG public meeting in Marrakech
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 16:32:30 UTC 2016
On 2 Feb 2016 15:55, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> We really need to have both the IGF Secretariat and the WSIS Chair on
this panel, as this is the first in the trilogy of the ICANN meetings
I don't understand this argument. We have a trilogy and we have to put igf
sec and wsis chair in the beginning of the three? Why? Can't someone else
talk about what they will talk about?
> So much has happened. The ICANN community will benefit from a sort of
roadmap, and survey of the road ahead.
> We are not debating what is happening. In fact, that is simply NOT what
the CCWG-IG is about, but about our [as a group] providing ideas, and
almost guidance on what the community views as critically important in how
ICANN interacts in the larger IG ecosystem.
Oh yes that is exactly why we need new faces on the panel not faces that
tell us what has happened. By new faces I mean new perspectives.
> BUT, to be credible, we need to do more work internally as a CCWG-IG.
> I regret that I missed the meeting during the ICANN in Ireland. I was at
the UN, as all of you are bored for me to remind!
> BUT, there are a few things.
> I appreciate hearing that we want new faces, and note that in the 30
minutes about ecosystem, that could be a great place for that!
> Farzaneh, perhaps you can identify 2-3 'new faces' with expertise that
could make 3-4 minute interventions. And, perhaps we could strive to
invite such responses from the floor. I recall that so often in these
sessions, we look at the microphone line and it is empty. or has 2 people.
THAT is not a welcomed sight to me. It is not that we, the organizers deny
receptivity but that standing up is challening.
Open mic is simply not enough. As long as you have people come to these
sessions repetitively talk about the same thing with no new perspective
you will get no one to talk at your open mic. And to be honest I can't
look for soldiers to talk from the floor when discussion is not
> Let's think about a different approach. We can set up different mikes, as
I made sure that was done at the WSIS+10 session at the IGF! [modeled after
NetMundial, by the way. ] Then, different CCWG-IG members can brief and
support engagement and facilitate awareness about the session, and we can
have a standing line of [goal] 5+ [+] speakers per stakeholder group!
> I love it
> this week, I will see Farzaneh at the CSG Intercessional. Perhaps we can
strategize on audience engagement approaches.
> that means probably that we need to develop what I will call 'guiding
Guiding questions is a good idea.
> Now, a question: should we invite one of the UN co facilitators/ or their
staff to join us for this session? I would love that and offer to reach out
Again why? And what do you mean by the UN? I really think this is about the
ig community and not UN staff.
> After all, we have the Net Mundial as a role model and the WSIS+10 event
at IGF. 3 minutes strictly enforced got a lot of 'stuff said', so to speak.
> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:06:10 +0100
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Proposed Agenda for CCWG IG
public meeting in Marrakech
> From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> To: ocl at gih.com
> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org; marilynscade at hotmail.com
> Sorry I didn't attend all the preparatory meetings so I am not sure about
a couple of things .
> Why are we having a GAC high level meeting takeaway in our ig session?
Can we be at least more specific how they fit? Is the takeaway about wsis
> I still don't know where we are putting igf sec and cstd.
> We have been always struggling to put new faces on the panel. Cant some
participants that have become active in this field brief us on issues?
> On 1 Feb 2016 21:36, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>> Dear Marilyn,
>> On 30/01/2016 18:12, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>> > Might I again insist that we invite Chengetai Masango, IGF Secretariat
>> > and Peter Major, CSTD Chair to this session. That would fit into 1,2.3
>> I personally think this is a good idea. They would definitely have
>> things to say about all of the topics.
>> All - any other suggestions?
>> Any feedback on the agenda itself?
>> Reminder: (with the GAC round-up brought to the beginning of the meeting
>> since it is a short item)
>> Proposed Public Session in Marrakech (75 minutes total time)
>> 1. GAC High Level meeting takeaway (5 minutes)
>> 2. The WSIS+10 process (20 minutes)
>> a. main outcomes
>> b. what to look out for in the future
>> 3. Debate about Fragmentation vs. Openness (30 minutes)
>> WEF - fragmentation paper
>> OECD debate on this topic. Is a follow-up to ministerial meeting in
>> Context in the names and numbers
>> The Wushen conference
>> --- end of agenda
>> Kindest regards,
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance