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

Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 13:49:20 UTC 2016


Hi

While I also agree that too much monotone talk only creates white
noise,  the "talking at" people part being completely supressed would
be a bit of shame since there will be, yes, those who want to listen
and reflect upon the topics before walking to the mic and just voicing
"to the wind" as we say in Portuguese.

So I guess a takeaway could be the main concerns in the status of
internet governance (like an overview, which is why I suggested
visuals) that the different panelists may have. It is only February,
what big announcements to come we have to expect? Then, the open mic
could be a magnet of reactions to that. (And thinking that this
'style' fits in with the topics already suggested).

I also agree with the topics and names suggested so far and reaffirm
the offer to send in the OECD contact if you haven't got someone yet
but I'm not sure to who I should send it to.

All the best

Renata





On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:
> All,
>
> I agree with the central point of Bill’s posting here. Whether it is ICANN
> staff, or us, these IG sessions tend to have three not very productive
> properties. First, much of the content is the same old same old. One gets
> much the same messages listening to audio archives from previous sessions.
> Second, a number of our interventions are like we are filling out an
> attendance card, maybe to report to our constituencies that "We were there
> and talked". Third, there is not much of a take away action agenda, beyond
> preparations for the next similar sessions inside or outside ICANN. Maybe we
> can start by discussing what we would like to take away from the sessions,
> and work backward to what we would like to put into the sessions. Doing more
> of the same old same old means we end up with more of the same old same old.
> We can/must do better than that.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 11/02/2016 5:50 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list