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

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Tue Sep 6 23:13:41 UTC 2016

Good evening

Just to confirm; I have edited the IGF Workshop Proposal 64 - “A Post IANA Transition ICANN” with the agenda outlined in the mail from Olivier below.



From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>
Date: Sunday 4 September 2016 19:22
To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>>
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,


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


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,


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 11th 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160906/3e293b2f/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list