[ccwg-internet-governance] Some notes on the previoius CCWG-IG adobe meeting

William Drake wjdrake at gmail.com
Wed Apr 26 07:23:32 UTC 2017


Fair question, Matt.  But from the standpoint of someone who lives in Geneva and floats in UN spaces, it’s a reasonable bet that some governments and stakeholders still don’t necessarily “know” it in the sense of fully believing and embracing it. They may have accepted that this is the deal now but it’s not necessarily the one they’d have selected if, say, they could have all voted on it in a ‘hospitable’ forum.  While the case may seem old and obvious to those of us who’ve talked about in ICANN forever, to people outside the bubble it may be less clear.

One would think that your generalizability question could usefully be built into this, so there’d be a narrative flow from the DNS case to the larger implications in other IG policy spaces at the back end.  It’s notable that the governments that have championed MS for DNS have not been willing to embrace it in other issue-areas like trade and inter-state security, and that and related questions would be worth probing.  (something I’m writing about so I among probably others would be interested in speaking to it)

If instead we turned the latter part around and put a singular focus on 'MS approaches elsewhere' then we’d probably need to recruit experts from those ‘elsewheres' to talk about how MS is or isn’t playing out. I wonder if we’d have the bandwidth and contacts to do that properly in the time that remains before the submission deadline, one week from today.

Could we square the circle by retitling, like ‘Multistakeholder governance of the domain name system: lessons learned and implications for other Internet governance issues’?  Just a thought…

I’d think the pressing thing at this point is to see who from this community actually plans to be at the IGF and would want to participate.  When we know what we have to work with in terms of talking heads we can fine tune the description to fit the available skill sets and interests. A key thing for MAG approval will be diversity of participants —gender/geo/stakeholder group etc.

BTW my suggestion for this would be to do a Roundtable format rather than a Panel.  A roundtable typically has like 15 participants, so we could accommodate a diversity of views from CCWIG into a moderated interactive dialogue with some guiding questions agreed online in advance.  This is what we did a couple years ago in Joao P, where I moderated a CCWIG session on the transition. If instead we pick a panel, then we have to struggle over which five people would come do prepared remarks etc.  More hassle, less fun.

Two cents,


> On Apr 26, 2017, at 07:17, Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com> wrote:
> Are we convinced that this is really that appealing a workshop?  We know MS works for the DNS.  We always talk about looking at ICANN as a best practice for using MS approaches elsewhere - could we not explore expanding the learnings of the MS model in ICANN into other pressing policy areas?  
> Matthew
> On 26/04/2017 06:45, Nigel Hickson wrote:
>> Colleagues
>> Good morning.  Just wanted to flag that in order to put in a submission on this (to meet deadline of 3rd May) we will need some further progress on this (though think there is quite a bit of material here).  
>> As has been noted we need to flag (in submission to MAG) the panellists for session (so need a few more names) and have their approval for such. 
>> Should we perhaps do a brief Call on Friday / Monday on this; happy to facilitate; 
>> Best
>> Nigel
>> From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> Date: Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 10:08
>> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>
>> Cc: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Some notes on the previoius CCWG-IG adobe meeting
>> On Apr 22, 2017, at 00:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>> This proposal hasn't progressed much since Farzaneh has shared the Google Doc. Please be so kind to take a few minutes to contribute.
>> Suggested edits made
>> Best
>> Bill
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> matthew at intpolicy.com <mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>
> +447712472987
> Skype:mshears <skype:mshears>

William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170426/79fa0a02/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list