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

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Tue May 31 23:05:21 UTC 2016

Dear Nigel,

thanks for your follow-up and taking note of the suggestions made by
everyone here, are you able to put together a descriptive text that will
tantalise the taste buds of MAG members?
Onto the line-up - if I recall last year correctly, these are usually
marked as tentative and can be amended. May I suggest the same line-up
as in WSIS Forum as a baseline, adding a couple of people to have a
better geographic balance? In particular, we could have people whom we
had asked to join at WSIS Forum but who could not make it? Recognising
that mentioning names on a public list might not be the best use of
resources & protocol, I'll take this up with you (and the WSIS Forum
workshop organising committee) by email.
If anyone on the mailing list wishes to join the group to organise an
IGF workshop or has suggestions for speakers, please email me directly.
Kindest regards,


On 31/05/2016 09:05, Nigel Hickson wrote:
> 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; 
> Best
> Nigel 
> From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
> Date: Tuesday 31 May 2016 06:47
> To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF
> workshop follow-up
> +1!!
> 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.  
>> Matthew
>> 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 remit.
>>     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,
>>>     Olivier
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160601/e944068e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list