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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 13 01:50:41 UTC 2016


Okay, perhaps you do not find my comments lending insight, and I respect thatbut others might find insight elsewhere. 
You and I, and Bill, seem to disagree about the session planning.  that is a single event and not really much of a concern to me.

Some of us are well versed in the topics, but we need to bring that into the public sessions, and think more broadly, as I noted.  
But not to think that the same topics for the f-f of the WG are the same of the public session. 
Personally, I think we are ignoring our work as a CCWG IG. As to ignoring your past great contributions  -- not at allBUT not sure that is the topic of today, as we are planning this session OR our f-f.
I also, as I am currently deeply engaged in the various sessions and events related to WSIS+10, know how important it is to have ICANN staff attend, contribute. The purpose of the CCWG-IG was to provide some guidance 
not to shut down ICANN engagementLet's return to our work together.
M
To: marilynscade at hotmail.com; ron.baione at yahoo.com; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
From: sam at lanfranco.net
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:48:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to Call of 9 Feb 2016


  
    
  
  
    
    
    Marilyn,

    
    

    I worry that your comments seem disposed to suspect the
    worst
    rather than look for the insight. The particular comments you take
    as negative
    were an effort to put some operational handles on the set of issues
    that Bill
    Drake had raised in his comments. 

    
    

    Bill 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.

    
    

    I am not sure if
      you are taking exception to what Bill said, or my suggestions for
      dealing with
      some of the issues. However, efforts to do better are seldom
      labeled “negativity”
      and usually taken as food for thought, on the path to better
      outcomes. As well, I worry that criticism
      bordering on character assassination risks stifling participation
      and
      engagement. As for listening to,
        and working with, developing country participants, I let my work
        of the past 50 years speak for itself. 

    
    

    Sam L.  

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    

    

    On 12/02/2016 3:34 PM, Marilyn Cade
      wrote:

    
    
      
      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
          

          
          M
          

            
              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. 

                        

                      
                    
                  
                
              
              
                 

                  
                    
                        From: 
                      Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>; 

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

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

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

                    
                    

                    
                      
                        
                           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
          
        
      
    
    

    -- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160212/2f51325c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list