[ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to Call of 9 Feb 2016

William Drake wjdrake at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 10:50:13 UTC 2016


Hi

I’m wondering if our process here is optimal.  We argued that the community should plan the public IG sessions with the staff instead of having the staff do it solo as before not just as a matter of principle but also, to my recollection, because there were concerns that the sessions had gotten a bit stale, i.e. big panels of usual suspects talking ‘at’ audiences with process updates about UN and related meetings, with little opportunity for inclusive and substantive community discussion.  But some (happily not all) of the sessions we’ve organized have turned out to be exactly like this anyway, with names getting added and added until we end up once again with big speakers’ lists packed into brief sessions and folks frustrated with the time management.  Moreover, I at least feel some discomfort about debating the variously perceived relative merits of potential speakers on a mail list of 185 people who may or may not know the objects of discussion, especially when we get into unilaterally imputing motives and mindsets to them in order to argue for alternatives.  

We are not the IGF MAG, we’re just teeing up a 75 minute session, right?  Why can’t we keep this simple— agree a couple topics and a moderator or two, have 1-2 conversation starters per topic who will put something substantive on the table that could elicit discussion (may they could each pose a couple fire starting questions), and then open the mic and let it rip (preferably with the two minute timer).  The community doesn't need us to over-plan this session.  Frankly, we shouldn’t need an hour per week of conversation among a handful of people to get it done, either.

In parallel, I’d argue that the F2F meeting should be a (re)constitutional convention of sorts.  The question of this group’s purpose and e.g. whether it needs to be a CCW has been raised off and on since we produced our one concrete output (the NETmundial statement two years ago); we might want to have a structured and focused conversation that comes to some conclusions.

Best

Bill


> On Feb 10, 2016, at 17:01, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> thanks, Bill.
> 
> As to Wolfgang speaking -- was he at Wuzan Conference? As he is  also a Board member of ICANN and a co author of your paper on fragmentation, and has spoken many many time, as Farzaneh noted, maybe we look further.  
> 
> But more importantly, as a Board member, he may be obliged to defend Fadi, should the issue of Fadi's separate meetings come up during the session. 
> 
> Was there anyone there from the community at the Conference, as just an attendee? I saw a few folks who were attending not associated with ICANN. 
> 
> I should have thought about this on our call, but doesn't the SSAC have a paper on blocking? Adding in a SSAC speaker might also be a very useful addition.
> 
> M
> 
> 
> > From: wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:05:49 +0100
> > To: ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>
> > CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to Call of 9 Feb 2016
> > 
> > Hi Olivier
> > 
> > On this piece,
> > 
> > > On Feb 10, 2016, at 01:11, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 3. Discussion about Fragmentation vs. Openness (30 minutes)
> > > 
> > > This is a discussion about Internet fragmentation in the context of
> > > ICANN.
> > 
> > Suggest the framing be fragmentation a] generally, for context of the discussion, and b] re: names and numbers, and ICANN’s contributions to mitigating/managing.
> > 
> > The text below relates only to b] but the inputs you mention pertain to a]. So perhaps balance across.
> > 
> > > As we know, there has been concern about the single root, about
> > > universal acceptance of IDN ad other new gTLDs, about demands for
> > > Country Internet Registries, amongst a lot of other things.
> > 
> > One of the things worth flagging here might be blocking?
> > 
> > > This part of
> > > the session is aimed at stimulating a good discussion about these issues
> > > in the ICANN Community. Several inputs are proposed to trigger discussions:
> > > 
> > > Inputs:
> > > WEF - fragmentation paper (presented by Bill Drake?)
> > 
> > I can overview the debate and issues addressed by the paper and by other sources 
> > 
> > > OECD debate on this topic - with possible topics of discussions in the
> > > forthcoming meeting in Cancun. (Presented by who?)
> > 
> > > The process of the World Internet Conference (WIC), Wuzhen Summit
> > > (Presented by who?)
> > 
> > Wolfgang?
> > 
> > > Other Contexts in the names and numbers (Presented by who?)
> > 
> > Avri or someone else GNSOish who can overview issues related to acceptance, conflicts, blocking, etc?
> > 
> > Conversation starters should shoot for under 15 min together and then open to floor for 15+. Will be cramped but maybe could still plant a few seeds...
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Bill
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> > ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <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/20160211/9537f544/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list