[ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG Internet Governance Public Session in Marrakech
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 18 19:26:54 UTC 2016
COMMENTS IN CAPS BELOW.
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
From: ocl at gih.com
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:29:34 +0100
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG Internet Governance Public Session in Marrakech
I have read through the previous thread with much interest and
consciously refrained from posting in order to see where the thread
goes. I am a little concerned we started mixing the Public session
& the WG F2F session, so let's discuss them separately.
I had proposed:
Proposed Public Session in Marrakech (75 minutes total time)
Thursday morning @ 09.00
1. GAC High Level meeting takeaway (5 minutes)
[ This is just going to be a quick summary of the results of the
High Level meeting that took place on the Monday of the meeting.
Chair has confirmed someone from GAC Leadership can do the 5
summary - focussing on any topic relating to Internet Governance
the High Level Meeting has addressed.]
I see much opposition to these 5 minutes as being time where people
will be talked at. Perhaps should we drop this? People who are
interested in GAC matters could attend the GAC HLM a few days
PROVIDING A 5 MINUTE UPDATE ON GAC HIGH LEVEL DOES NOT EQUATE TO BEING TALKED AT. :-)IN FACT, BY AGREEING TO SPEAK, THE GAC REP WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE ATTENDEES.
MANY PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE GAC HLM DUE TO OTHER COMMITMENTS, OR JUST LACK OF OPPORTUNITY.
THE GAC IS A LEGITIMATE PART OF THE COMMUNITIES OF ICANN. \
FIVE MINUTES FOR AN UPDATE SEEMS QUITE REASONABLE.
2. The WSIS+10 process (30 minutes)
a. main outcomes
b. what to look out for in the future
This session will focus primarily on the future challenges.
will provide a bit of background but it is hoped this is not just
to be an uninspired "update session".
Hana AlHashimi - speaking about the SDGs
Peter Major - speaking about CSTD's Enhanced Cooperation
Chengetai Masango - speaking about IGF extension
I have so far contacted Ms. Al Hashimi but gotten no reply, so we
might need to find an alternate. I'll contact the two other
potential panellists shortly.
Seeing that we want to facilitate an open floor discussion on this
topic I suggest we do NOT add any more people to this list. 3
speakers is enough.
AND WE CAN ASK THEM TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO 3-5 MIN EACH, AND INVITE HANA TO PROVIDE A VIDEO STATEMENT IF NOT AVAILABLE IN PERSON. THEN TAHT LEAVES 15 MINUTES FOR INTERACTION FROM PARTICIPANTS IN THE ROOM.
3. Discussion about Fragmentation vs. Openness
This is a discussion about Internet fragmentation in the context
ICANN. As we know, there has been concern about the single root,
universal acceptance of IDN ad other new gTLDs, about demands for
Country Internet Registries, amongst a lot of other things. This
the session is aimed at stimulating a good discussion about these
in the ICANN Community. Several inputs are proposed to trigger
a] generally, for context of the discussion, and
b] re: names and numbers, and ICANN’s contributions to
WEF - fragmentation paper (Bill Drake?) NUMBER OF MIN?
OECD [debate\ on this topic - with possible topics of discussions in
forthcoming meeting in Cancun. (Presented by who?) NUMBER OF MIN?
The process of the World Internet Conference (WIC), Wuzhen Summit
(Suggested: Rinalia Abdul Rahim) NUMBER OF MIN?
BOARD MEMBERS WERE FUNDED TO ATTEND THIS CONFERENCE WHICH IMPLIES THAT ICANN BOARD IS OFFICIALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE CONFERENCE, BUT THE SPEAKER AND OFFICIAL PARTICIPANT WAS THE CEO/PRESIDENT, AND ICANN STAFF. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT A SINGLE BOARD MEMBER IS BEING SINGLED OUT/PERHAPS BOTH SHOULD SHOW UP, AS WELL AS ICANN STAFF, WHO CAN EXPLAIN ICANN'S OFFICIAL PARTICIPATION, VERSUS BOARD MEMBERS WHO WERE FUNDED TO TRAVEL AND ATTEND, BUT ARE NOT OFFICIALLY REPRESENTING ICANN.
Other Contexts in the names and numbers (Suggested: Avri Doria) NUMBER OF MIN? IF YOU MEAN FRAGMENTATION CONCERNS, I MIGHT RECOMMEND SOMEONE FROM THE IAB OR RS COMMUNITY IN THAT CASE OR PATRICK FALSTROM, SSAC TO JOIN THIS SEGMENT.THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND ADDRESS THE SSR IMPLICATIONS OF THE FRAGMENTATION DISCUSSION. AND BE RELATIVELY NEWER FACE/PERSPECTIVE.
But this means we have 7 speakers (plus moderator(s)) for a 75
minute session. I am feeling rather unhappy to have that many
speakers, especially in the light of the comments made by Bill, Sam,
Farzaneh, that the session risks being yet another unproductive
session same old same old talking "at" people.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME IN THE CCWG-IG ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT TOO MANY SPEAKERS, BUT OTHERS ARE SUGGESTING THAT INFORMATIONAL ASPECTS ARE VALUABLE. THIS IS A BALANCING ACT.
IF THE 7 SPEAKERS ALL LIMIT THEMSELVES TO 3-5 MIN, THEN YOU HAVE ONLY 35 MIN OF STATEMENTS AND PLENTY OF TIME FOR PARTICIPANT QUESTIONS AND ENGAGEMENT.
ALSO, WE MAY BE LOSING HANA, WHO MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THE END. I JUST SAW PETER AND HE NOTED HE COULD SPEAK PROBABLY IN LESS THAN 5 MIN.
Should we cull the list of invitees and have the ones we keep
comment on both parts of the session? This way: less time for
panellists professing. More time for audience participation and
WHILE SOME OF US MAY BE OVERLY BORED WITH EACH OTHER AS WE SEE EACH OTHER, TALK OVER AND OVER, THE ROOM IS NOT FILLED WITH US. IT IS FILLED WITH NEWCOMERS AND THOSE WHO WANT TO KNOW, AND HAVE LESS ACCESS THAN WE HAVE.
OUR BIGGER CHALLENGES IS ALWAYS, IN MY VIEW, THT WE ARE NOT GETTING OPTIMAL TIME SLOTS FOR OUR SESSION, AND WE ARE LIMITED OFTEN TO 75 MIN, WHEN 90 MINUTES IS MUCH MORE WHAT IS NEEDED.
COMPLAINING THAT WE HAVE HEARD EACH OTHER IS NON PRODUCTIVE. LET'S DO SOMETHING SO THAT WE CAN RECRUIT BROADER ATTENDANCE, THEN THE SAME OLD/SAME OLD IS ACTUALLY NEW AGAIN.
OF COURSE, WE CAN JUST COMPLAIN: IT IS JUST US, IT IS JUST US. OR WE CAN 'MARKET' THE TOPIC, ENCOURAGE BROADER ATTENDANCE, AND MAKE THE SESSION REALLY WELL AND DIVERSELY ATTENDED.
GUESS WHAT GETS MY VOTE?
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance