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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 12 20:34:51 UTC 2016

While I respect Sam has joined the ICANN community and is contributing, really, I question the negativity that is being offered.
As someone who does attend the meetings, and pays attention, not just for a constituency but for others who care from developing countries, I am not at all willing to acceed to this argument, nor its negativity.
Come and participate. 
at more than one session and more than just a few years. Join for the longer term. As most of us have done.
Listen to the concerns from the developing country participants 
Then perhaps we can figure out whether anyone was offering logic, or an individual perspective
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:45:44 -0800
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to Call of 9 Feb 2016
From: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org

I agree with Sam's logic, and remember, the feeling that you are just filing out the attendance card to report back to your constituencies/countries is not a problem to solve, that action is the entire purpose of internet governance and all its multitude of acronyms, to make the nations of the world believe that a conference attendance card equals progress.  


                            Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>;                            

                            CCWG <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>;                                                                             

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

                            Thu, Feb 11, 2016 1:30:27 PM                            




    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
    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
    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


      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




ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160212/6621faed/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list