[ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG-IG session going on now
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Mon Mar 19 21:52:09 UTC 2018
You have Tatiana and Joanna because we asked for new people on these panels
and worked towards bringing in experts for the past two years. Also because
the "usual suspects" in some groups have taken the back seat allowing other
qualified people present on these panels. Otherwise, the composition of the
panel would have been the same.
A good panel at WSIS is not only about the attendees of WSIS. It's about
what vision we are portraying outside of ICANN and how we show this to our
ICANN community too. If we don't show the evolution and send the same
people in over and over, then I don't think we get the result we want. This
panel was actually good in my opinion and some interesting conversation was
I am not really calling for forced diversity or changing the composition of
the panel all the time, I am calling for at least looking for other
qualified people who can replace those who have been on these panels since
the inception of CCWG-IG.
PS. Tatiana, the threshold of being called "usual suspect" on the panel for
this group is around 20 times and some have permanent seats. you have a
long way to go.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> The WSIS Forum is a sort of strange setting, and we were somewhat
> challenged on being on Day 1 as for instance although Joanna was invited,
> she was traveling, so we missed her in person. She was so great to do the
> PP and the audio track, and we will post both to the website, so she speaks
> in her own words.[Thanks, Joanna!] and also Tatiana, for being with us
> remotely which is never much fun, but it seemed to work well logistically,
> even if we missed some dynamics.
> However, still, we had somewhere between 25-30 attendees, and in the
> audience several who told us later:
> -never attended ICANN
> -first WSIS Forum
> -one who thinks the ITU is the answer and should take over ICANN and IGF
> and "oversee" any IG discussions at WIPO, UNESCO, UNCTAD.
> Most of the attendees in the room are not indeed "usual suspects",. so
> they don't use the remote connection if they are attending.
> I was not able to focus on the stream, or the remote connect and also
> chair the meeting, so apologies if I missed some comments that could have
> been incorporated into the discussion.
> However, I am curious and need to understand the reference to "usual
> I am not sure that I see that Tatiana and Joanna are usual suspects as
> speakers, nor Anja Gengo, nor Torbjorn/UNTAD, or Xianhong Hu from UNESCO,
> or Preetam, ITU.
> Are we saying that is one is an expert, they should not participate in an
> event where experience and expertise is needed, and no one else is willing
> to travel and self fund? We called on those who could be there.
> I regret if anyone who wanted to join as a speaker was not able to, but we
> probably could not have managed more than one speaker and been able to take
> WSIS Forum. indeed, as Farzi said much earlier, has a lot of governments
> attending but not with the usual suspects of
> GAC or MAG attendees. Probably at least 35-40 % of our attendees were from
> governments and so could benefit ... One of the IGO speakers told me that
> someone asked if that govt is active in their IGO, as they thought they
> only attended ITU and UN. That person learned [from an audience
> /participant] the their country has an NRI; they are engaged in UNCTAD and
> UNESCO, and the ICANN GAC.
> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance <ccwg-internet-governance-
> bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 19, 2018 12:59 PM
> *To:* farzaneh badii; CCWG
> *Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG-IG session going on now
> Hello all,
> thanks for pointing the session out. I gather there are several people on
> the stream, but only a handful on the Adobe Connect. Both are linked from
> the agenda. I'd say that the participants, apart from three, are not the
> usual suspected.
> Kindest regards,
> On 19/03/2018 16:35, farzaneh badii wrote:
> I have not seen any mention of this meeting on the list today.
> Looks like a good session but as always we have the usual suspect on the
> panel. I am at fault cause I could not suggest anyone else. Does not mean
> we should stop improving.
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing listccwg-internet-governance at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-internet-governance&data=02%7C01%7C%7C058cd2168748499e2b0608d58dbade27%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636570756082818391&sdata=c1nSpGnDASwNXHd4BLNugWe7GD46XZrj0cwmfEwRE9s%3D&reserved=0>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gih.com%2Focl.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C058cd2168748499e2b0608d58dbade27%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636570756082818391&sdata=vw6rQlSSwc353EnU7BT9GWg%2FPlw1SYRaiCpBm8hB1F8%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance