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

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Thu Feb 11 13:55:15 UTC 2016


Good afternoon 

On OECD am meeting the ³Ministerial² folks later this week so can
ascertain who might come to Marrakech.

Best

Nigel 



On 11/02/16 14:49, "ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org on behalf
of Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of raquino at gmail.com> wrote:

>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 Bill¹s 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
>>
>> I¹m 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 Œat¹ 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 we¹ve organized have turned out to be exactly like this anyway,
>> with names getting added and added until we end up once again with big
>> speakers¹ 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, we¹re just teeing up a 75 minute session, right?
>> Why can¹t 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 shouldn¹t need an hour per week of conversation
>>among
>> a handful of people to get it done, either.
>>
>> In parallel, I¹d argue that the F2F meeting should be a
>>(re)constitutional
>> convention of sorts.  The question of this group¹s 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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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