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

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Sat Feb 13 12:07:56 UTC 2016


I totally agree with Sam. Especially with this :

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.



I think we should collectively decide on what should be discussed then
think about the speakers etc. It might be too late for now but for meeting
B we need much work to do and I hope more people participate.

Marilyn, how about bringing in someone active in developing countries in IG
issues to talk at IG session instead of speaking on behalf of them ?
ofcourse I am not suggesting the usual suspects.  [ and I don't know why
the comment about developing countries was even raised]






On 12 February 2016 at 21:34, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>


-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160213/bfe8bb8e/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list