[ccwg-internet-governance] Proposed Agenda for CCWG IG public meeting in Marrakech

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 16:59:25 UTC 2016


I would be grateful if you do not ask rhetorical questions that might
contain or communicate false presumptions.  Yes we are here for
multistakeholder etc. All I'm asking is to be clear in the agenda why you
have GAC there explicitly. As to other stakeholder groups I don't see all
of them as speakers but thats OK.
I am a little confused, as other speakers will be from other SG groups.
We are after all are planning this session, as a multi stakeholder CCWG.
right?


------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:49:20 +0100
Subject: RE: [ccwg-internet-governance] Proposed Agenda for CCWG IG public
meeting in Marrakech
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
To: marilynscade at hotmail.com
CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org; ocl at gih.com

Yes I know there are three Icann meetings and this is the first in trilogy
but I still don't understand why we need to have UN staff to speak during
the first one.

Yes Marilyn I know that they talk about ig in GAC.  It has to be clarified
that is why we invited them.  I am not going to make it more complicated
but if you have GAC talk about ig why not other stakeholder groups?!.  Not
a point of discussion but I think it's odd to have GAC in the agenda with
no explanation.
On 9 Feb 2016 17:43, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

I proposed to have the GAC Chair also join.  And of course, they do talk
about IG issues in the GAC.

M

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:41:16 +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

Hi olivier

I didn't receive an answer to my question why do we have GAC brief here? We
should be clear that they will talk about ig issues.

Now we have prolonged the very interesting WSIS +10 agenda item to 30
minutes?  I really don't think there is much to talk about for 30 minutes
other than repetion of the past.  I suggest shortening it by 10 to 15
minutes.  Then have the fragmentation and then open mic.
On 9 Feb 2016 17:02, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

Hello everyone,

I think that some of the participants in the CCWG Internet Governance have
managed to meet F2F in the NCPH inter-sessional. I have received some more
input on the proposed Marrakech agendas which we'll discuss in today's call:
https://community.icann.org/x/ygWAAw

Proposed Public Session in Marrakech (75 minutes total time)
Thursday morning @ 09.00

1. GAC High Level meeting takeaway (5 minutes)
[ This is just going to be a quick summary of the results of the GAC High
Level meeting that took place on the Monday of the meeting. I have a
response from the GAC Chair that a GAC Vice Chair will be able to deliver
this. ]

2. The WSIS+10 process (30 minutes)
a. main outcomes
b. what to look out for in the future

Proposed Panellists:
Hana AlHashimi - speaking about the SDGs
Peter Major - speaking about CSTD's Enhanced Cooperation
Chengetai Masango - speaking about IGF extension

There then follows an open floor discussion for the remainder of this
section time.

3. Debate about Fragmentation vs. Openness (20 minutes)
Inputs:
WEF - fragmentation paper (presented by Bill Drake)
OECD debate on this topic. Is a follow-up to ministerial meeting in
Seoul.(who?)
Context in the names and numbers

(note that The Wushen conference will not be discussed explicitly due to
its sensitivity)

We need to choose panellists for this second part of the session.

F2F Working Group Session
Wednesday @ 10.45

Please contribute the topics which you think we should discuss.
One of them will need to be:
WSIS Forum Workshop Preparation

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 02/02/2016 22:04, Marilyn Cade wrote:

Let me see if I can work with all of us - to create an agenda -- the CCWG
IG also needs to focus on our own internal working and meeting.

I do apologize, but this is really a priority to me and I seem to have
missed when we are scheduling that.



------------------------------
From: marilynscade at hotmail.com
To: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com; ocl at gih.com
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:55:44 -0500
CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Proposed Agenda for CCWG IG public
meeting in Marrakech

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

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.

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.

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
questions'.

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
to them.


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

Olivier

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 etc?

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?

Best

Farzaneh
On 1 Feb 2016 21:36, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" < <ocl at gih.com>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)

Inputs:
WEF - fragmentation paper
OECD debate on this topic. Is a follow-up to ministerial meeting in Seoul.
Context in the names and numbers
The Wushen conference

--- end of agenda


Kindest regards,

Olivier
_______________________________________________
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


-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160209/4912aaa5/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list