[ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF workshop follow-up

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue May 31 22:49:39 UTC 2016

I just want to put on my IGF MAG hat for a minute. I already noted that I would not participate in the development of the proposal, as MAG members cannot submit workshop proposals.
However, just a comment: as important as this topic is, the workshop proposal  needs to be about the IG aspects, NOT just a briefing about what ICANN is and how it works, and its more recent focus areas -- which might be the IANA transition...  -- that belongs in ICANN's Open Forum session. 

The IGF MAG expects over 250 workshop proposals [if last year is a predictor] and there will be only around 90 - 100 approved. 
I am not going to be online now for a while, as weather in mid America is wreaking havoc with all flights out from where I am, so I may  not be able to comment until much later tomorrow.
But, asking you to carefully consider how you relate this to Internet Governance.  I am sure you can do that... and undoubtedly there will be other workshop proposals from others on this topic.
All voices and views are also a requirement... but then all of you have read the published criteria, so enough on that! M

From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
To: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 06:59:35 +0000
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF workshop follow-up

Good morning 

This seems to be shaping in a coherent fashion to enable a submission to MAG; which in itself is not a trivial process; a but like applying for a job.  What we do need, however, is contributors / panelsits; these have to be listed along with a moderator
 on application.  We need to finalise this by Friday to allow a submission by 6th June; 



From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>

Date: Tuesday 31 May 2016 06:47

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

Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF workshop follow-up


Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-05-30 4:07, Matthew Shears wrote:

I like Sam's points a lot.  And this may actually give us a chance to talk more broadly about the Internet governance Eco-system post transition.  We tend to talk about the component parts of the IG space but perhaps post transition this is an opportunity to
 talk about it more holistically, a little bit of tea leaves reading in terms of the future of the MS model in the IG ecosystem, the lessons learned from the transition, the role of governments, multilateral vs Multistakeholder,  etc.  


On Sunday, 29 May 2016, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

I would like to add an additional dimension to the useful comments made by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, and that is the need for
a clear understanding by those outside ICANN , IANA and NTIA about the limits to the ICANN remit. Some of the concerns expressed by those questioning the transition and accountability plans are actually concerns about issues that reside outside ICANN’s
The transition is likely to more sharply define the scope and limits of the ICANN remit, and that is good. However, it would unfortunate if objections were allowed to stand against the proposed structure and operation of the ICANN multistakeholder
 model, when the policy issues in question  are outside ICANN’s remit, and would in any event have to be decided in other venues.
In addition to patiently explaining the strengths of the proposed multistakeholder model within ICANN’s remit, we have to explain what ICANN is not, so that others do not assess it in terms of its abilities to address issues that are outside
 ICANN’s own actual remit. 
Sam Lanfranco

On 5/29/2016 6:03 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

Thanks for your suggestion Farzaneh.

I am also concerned about it being rejected, of course. I thought that having a focus on the multistakeholder model would give it more chance to succeed - as in:

1. this is an example of a specific multistakeholder model having succeeded in coming up with an operational plan: and

2. the plan was to make the organisation accountable to its own communities

(1) has real impact on Internet Governance because opponents of the multistakeholder model often criticise if for not being able to take any decisions. We often hear that a multi-lateral model is needed when decisions need to be made and certainly when anything
 remotely operational (by opposition to something theoretical) is to be addressed.

(2) is a real novelty. Traditionalists usually look up to a higher authority to which an organisation is accountable to - and the question remains "to whom is the higher authority accountable to?" But in the accountability plan, we see the novelty of what I
 would call a circular accountability, being accountable to the communities that select the leaders. Isn't this something novel enough for the MAG to allow this session to take place?

Kindest regards,



ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

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/20160531/ed738528/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list