[ccwg-internet-governance] IGF 2016 Proposal proposed Agenda

matthew shears mshears at cdt.org
Mon Sep 5 12:52:20 UTC 2016


Thanks Olivier - works for me.


On 05/09/2016 13:39, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Thanks Marilyn.
>
> as many people still do not know at this stage whether they'll be able 
> to attend IGF in person, we probably have to amend the speaker line-up 
> closer to the date. All speakers currently listed have confirmed their 
> provisional participation. I'd be reticent to add more... but if some 
> inform us of their inability to attend in person, we'll need to look 
> for replacements.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 05/09/2016 16:10, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>> Looks good.
>>
>> Don't you also need to offer any changes to the line up of speakers?
>>
>> M
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> From: ocl at gih.com
>> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 20:22:33 +0300
>> Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] IGF 2016 Proposal proposed Agenda
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> following up on the thread below, we have until Tuesday 6 September 
>> 2016 to update the agenda.
>>
>> Are you okay with the following agenda which Matthew, Rafik and I 
>> extrapolated from the initial roundtable proposal?
>>
>> --- cut here ---
>>
>> 1. Introduction - (Matthew Shears - 5 minutes)
>>
>> 2. Brief Update on CCWG Accountability (10 minutes)
>> - how CWG IANA, CCWG Accountability Work Stream 1 (WS1) and CCWG 
>> Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2) fit together
>> - update on WS2 sub-topics
>>
>> 3. Stakeholder Involvement (30 minutes)
>> Each stakeholder represented in the round table will share their 
>> personal and stakeholder experiences in the WGs, etc., drawing 
>> attention to the processes, tools and methodologies used.
>> - assessment of the model?
>> - portability of the model?
>> - Have we learnt anything from the WS1 process? Are we applying 
>> improvements to WS2?
>>
>> 4. Debate - from discussion to decision - is this model portable to 
>> other fora? (40 minutes)
>> As decisions are hard to make in a bottom-up multistakeholder system, 
>> is the model used in CCWG Accountability portable to other fora?
>>
>> 5. Wrap up (Matthew Shears - 5 minutes)
>>
>> --- cut here ---
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>> On 25/08/2016 18:14, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     following up on the IGF proposal, I checked the CCWG IG email
>>     archives and was under the impression that Nigel had sent the
>>     update to the mailing list.... but could not find it.
>>     Please find the confirmation below that our workshop
>>     https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2016/index.php/proposal/view_public/64
>>     has been accepted for the IGF 2016 meeting.
>>     In response to the questions in the text:
>>
>>
>>         *From:* IGF <IGF at unog.ch <mailto:IGF at unog.ch>>
>>         *Date:* 3 August 2016 at 14:11:06 GMT+2
>>         *To:* <nigel.hickson at icann.org
>>         <mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>>,
>>         <dierdre.sidjanski at icann.org
>>         <mailto:dierdre.sidjanski at icann.org>>
>>         *Subject:* *Status of Your IGF 2016 Workshop Proposal*
>>
>>         Dear Mr. NIGEL HICKSON,
>>
>>         Thank you for submitting workshop proposal #64, “A Post IANA
>>         Transition ICANN ”, to be considered for the 11th Annual IGF
>>         Meeting to be held in  Guadalajara, Mexico.
>>
>>         The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has reviewed all
>>         submitted workshop proposals. Following this review, we are
>>         pleased to inform you that  your workshop proposal, “A Post
>>         IANA Transition ICANN ”, was accepted for the IGF 2016 meeting.
>>         Editing of proposals is re-enabled via _this link_
>>         <https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2016/index.php/user/login> and
>>         we kindly ask you to further update your proposal with the
>>         following information *by 2 September 2016*:
>>
>>         1.  a complete list of the panellists, with as many
>>         “confirmed” as possible;
>>         2.  an agenda of the workshop;
>>
>>
>>     - a complete list of panellists -- I think that we already have
>>     that worked out.
>>     - an agenda for the workshop - this needs to be worked out. I
>>     propose a similar format to our past workshops:
>>
>>     The agenda we followed for IGF2015 about IANA Stewardship
>>     Transition was:
>>
>>     1. Introductions
>>     2. The IANA Transition process - comments from respondents and
>>     delegates
>>     3. Accountability process - comments from respondents and delegates
>>     4. Related issues; WSIS; IGF Mandate;
>>     5. General discussion
>>     6. Summary
>>
>>     Proposed agenda for IGF 2016:
>>
>>     1. Introductions
>>     2. The IANA Transition process - epilogue from respondents and
>>     delegates (includes comments on ICANN Accountability requirements
>>     for IANA Stewardship Transition)
>>     3. Accountability process - from Work Stream 1 to Work Stream 2.
>>     How do you make an organisation accountable?
>>     4. General discussion
>>     5. Summary
>>
>>     Please comment on this. We also need to choose a moderator.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Furthermore, please find below the comments made by the MAG
>>         during evaluation to help you further refine and update your
>>         proposal:
>>
>>             <Same as 63? One of them should go, but this looks like a
>>             duplicate workshop. 
>>
>>
>>     There appears to have been an error where both workshops had the
>>     same text. This is fixed now. #63 is about new gTLDs.
>>
>>
>>             ICANN has already its proper space. it is better to keep
>>             the floor for other entities
>>
>>
>>     This comment appears to have been made about the organisation
>>     requesting the workshop, not the topic of the workshop itself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             Very relevant and timely issue, but which could be maybe
>>             addressed in a different type of session, for instance in
>>             Day 0.>
>>
>>
>>     I wonder whether this is the case. Not being deeply knowledgeable
>>     about the pros/cons of a day 0 session, I'll let others here comment.
>>
>>     Kindest regards,
>>
>>     Olivier
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         Please note that failure to provide the aforementioned
>>         updates by the *indicated deadline of 2 September 2016* may
>>         result in a reallocation of your workshop slot.
>>
>>         We thank you for your continued engagement in the IGF process
>>         and we look forward to working together toward a successful
>>         11^th  IGF. For further information, please do not hesitate
>>         to contact us by email at _IGF at unog.ch_ <mailto:IGF at unog.ch>.
>>
>>
>>         Best regards,
>>
>>         IGF Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>     ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>     <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list 
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

-- 
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160905/de47c1cc/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list