[ccwg-internet-governance] NOTE OF CCWG IG PUBLIC SESSION AT ICANN 61; MONDAY 12/3

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Mar 22 14:28:38 UTC 2018


Thank ou, Nigel.  This is very helpful.  Consistent with our communications
strategy and remit, how do we communicate this to the SO/ACS (even the ones
that don’t charter us at the moment?  Do we do a report/newsletter/blog on
IG issues/developments at ICANN61, with some version of this as content (or
with a blurb/into as content linking to some version of this)?  Or do we
bundle it with other neighboring developments (e,g,, WSIS, IGF, etc.)

My advice would be to keep it smaller and more manageable (i.e., just
ICANN61).  We can report the others separately.  As we succeed at small
discrete reports we can get ambitious.  Starting with ambition is too risky.

My other advice is that we have to keep generation of original content to a
minimum.  We don’t have the time, support or capacity.  We need to link,
republish, highlight and repackage.  So using Nigel’s work with a minimum
of repackaging is okay, and we can distribute it as such or we can link
with a blurb, but rewriting it substantially to be more formal would not be
okay.

If there’s any other useful content about IG at ICANN61, we should wrap it
up with this.  If we have something to report and no source to use, then we
write something short and sweet.

My 2 cents,

Greg

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:51 AM Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
wrote:

> Colleagues
>
>
>
> Good morning.  With apologies for delay, I attach below an informal Note
> of the IG public session held at ICANN 61 last week. I will circulate the
> full attendance list and the formal recording in due course.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *NOTE OF CCWG IG PUBLIC SESSION AT ICANN 61; MONDAY 12/3*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Summary *
>
>
>
> This was a very well attended, constructive and informative IG public
> Session.  It clearly showed a keen interest of the Community in
> understanding external legislative and policy initiatives that could have
> an impact on ICANN.  The overall approach being taken by the Organisation
> to identify *themes *which were most relevant for ICANN was welcomed. It
> was recognised that there were challenges ahead but also opportunities
> for ICANN in enhancing the understanding of policy makers of our work.  The
> GDPR and the potential limitation in registrant data publication on WHOIS
> was seen as a potential problem for ICANN more globally.
>
>
>
> *Details *
>
>
>
> See agenda posted at
> https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/6477[61.schedule.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_meetings_6477&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=ZPmj3X932Kyz_8P5OUDk7cuUr_60y1f24rZGOAcfuac&s=LBcnQfSN_W5OkbKYzuO0WdIbnCZh0IJrdFLQEMnz_ys&e=>
>
>    and the ICANN Wiki page for the CCWG IG is at
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D43984275&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=ZPmj3X932Kyz_8P5OUDk7cuUr_60y1f24rZGOAcfuac&s=9Pvjgjydh3_KU8RJpTqNIhJmlsSX6-GM5HDP7n4jOeI&e=>
>
>
>
> *1. Introduction *
>
>
>
> *Olivier Crepin-Leblond (OCL) (co-chair) *introduced session.  He
> outlined the form of Session and said we had interpretation and remote
> participation facilities.
>
>
>
>
>
> *2.  Evolving Internet Landscape (Tarek Kamel – TK)*
>
>
>
> TK noted a number of evolving issues which reflected a changing Internet
> policy landscape and how this affects ICANN engagement priorities.
>
>
>
>    - Are we seeing some symptoms of fatigue in IG issues in recent years;
>    such as in the UN GGE on Cybersecurity and the CSTD work on Enhanced
>    Cooperation not coming to conclusions
>    - There were also questions on reduced global business participation
>    in IGF
>    - Do we see some thematic shifts in IG discussion, from concerns on
>    bodies /locations to those on Internet policy issues;
>    - Do we see some shift to multilateral frameworks at global level?
>    - We saw focus on issues such as E-Commerce at WTO and Internet and
>    Jurisdiction
>    - How far should be ICANN be involved in these thematic discussions?
>    Will we be welcome?
>    - Also, technical developments can potentially affect us and the DNS?
>    Should we be involved with these, such as 5G and mobile providers?
>    - We cannot be everywhere, where should we prioritize?
>
>
>
>
>
> In *discussion *
>
>
>
>    - What Board priorities are there on themes?  TK noted Board is
>    looking for Community input in this regard;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    - *Matthew Shears* (Chair Board WG) noted new strategic approach to IG
>    – need to have a feel for what is coming down road and will affect ICANN
>
>
>
>    - Challenge of IG not gone away, just focus is elsewhere
>
>
>
>    - *Steve Delbianco* noted the IGF Panel in Geneva (2017) on DOA /
>    Internet Identifiers / we should continue to discuss these issues in
>    relation to DNS - important discussed in a multi-stakeholder setting –
>    recognise that more business needed at IGF and this will happen given
>    growing prominence of some Civil society sessions that were antagonistic to
>    business)
>
>
>
>    - *Andrew Mack* agreed that IGF was a good venue to debate these
>    business issues.
>
>
>
>
>
> *3. IP Addressing – Challenges ahead?  *
>
>
>
>
>
> *Pablo Hinojosa (APNIC)* spoke on challenges to IG identifiers; thought
> dialogue was not “challenges” but opportunities; noted cooperation re
> ITU/RIR/ITU on these issues and also noted importance of engagement of all
> stakeholders in regional space;
>
>
>
> *OCL* asked whether there would be proposals re IP addressing etc at
> PP-18
>
>
>
> *Nigel Hickson* flagged that ITU PP-18 could be touching on names etc and
> also referenced WTO discussions and E Commerce Agenda
>
>
>
> *Marilyn Cade* said that within discussions on E Commerce identifiers
> would be part of it
>
>
>
>
>
> *4. Tensions between multistakeholder and multilateral approaches? *
>
>
>
> *OCL *posed the question as to whether there are tensions here and where
> they come from?
>
>
>
> *Martin Botterman* (ICANN Board) said they were not exclusive processes
> and both approaches could live together with cooperation
>
>
>
> *Jimson Olufye* gave an overview (as a way of an example) of the process
> of Enhanced Cooperation at and his initial optimism for the conclusion of
> this work; he went over history from WSIS onwards; noting the 2012 WG and
> then GA Decision in 2015 to set up 2nd WG which had recognised that in
> fact Enhanced Cooperation was taking place; the failure demonstrated how
> small minority views can scupper outcomes?   Question left open, was
> whether we needed a new structure for all of this?
>
>
>
> *Olivier* concluded that although Group had failed there was enhanced
> understanding.
>
>
>
> *Israel Rosas* noted that we have to be able to work with both
> multilateral and multistakeholder efforts.
>
>
>
>
>
> *OCL*– is ICANN taken as a good working model of Enhanced Cooperation?
>
>
>
> *Jimson* and some others thought that indeed ICANN Model is good model
> though Steve noted that  we must be judged by results and not just having a
> process; GDPR is a case in point?  So, problems for ICANN ahead?
>
>
>
> *Greg Shatan* – Noted the ISOC IG project as a good example of a
> multistakeholder process;
>
>
>
> *Young Em Lee* – We – through CCWG IG etc - have enhanced visibility and
> understanding of ICANN in different for such as ITU and UN
>
>
>
> *Matthew*– Noted that we much also recognised the success (or otherwise)
> of the MS model by what is taking place at the national and regional
> levels; like in UK, Brazil and elsewhere;
>
>
>
>
>
> *5. Cybersecurity – Opening up to Multistakeholder approaches? *
>
>
>
>
>
> *Tatiana Tropina* – noted all is not positive in the global dialogue on
> cybersecuirty; referenced Tim Berners Lee US speech (see          ) noting
> we must regulate business to prevent weaponisation of the Internet.  She
> did not agree there can be accommodation in this area between multilateral
> and multistakeholder approaches.   If we look at multilateral fora on
> cybersecuirty do we say any success? No GGE Experts failed; no threat from
> UN as have no competence or expertise.
>
>
>
> She also noted how the EU professes to support multistakeholder approaches
> but in reality, the EU has no such attributes. We must be honest and wake
> up!
>
>
>
> *Pablo* also said there was heat in the cybersecuirty dialogue, but that
> was important we bring players together.  The 2016 UN GGE (unbelievably)
> came up with ideas on CERTS without any input from CERT Community.
>
>
>
> *Nigel* noted need for input on all Technical Process; we will continue
> to make this point and provide factual information where we can
>
>
>
> *TK*  - answering a question concerning the MOU - referenced the security
> aspects of our work on GSMA - MOU will re-enforce this collaboration; he
> noted we will periodically report on the operation of this MOU
>
>
>
> *Christopher Wilkinson* was concerned MOU was rather high-level, said
> should update MOU with experience and introduce more concrete areas of
> collaboration
>
>
>
> *Pablo* and *TK* both referenced the work the I* organisations take
> forward together both at ITU, IGF and in other fora.
>
>
>
>
>
> *6.  Internet Governance and GDPR – a problem?*
>
>
>
> *Greg *was concerned about the potential fall out of WHOIS limitations
> post GDPR implementation by ICANN, and thought this could alienate support
> for ICANN among governments (both friendly and not). He thought some of our
> allies would turn to more multilateral positions for governance issues.
>
>
>
> He noted upcoming IGF USA will focus on whole range of issues of current
> concern.
>
>
>
> *Tatiana* thought that the enhancement of data protection for DNS players
> was positive.
>
>
>
>
>
> *7.  IGF and NRIs *
>
>
>
> *Anja Gengo* - noted that the Regional and National Initiatives NRIs)
> under the IGF were flourishing and discussing a whole range of issues  -
> also NRI vehicles are being used by governments for inputs on Internet
> policies, which is very positive.
>
>
>
> She noted there was lots of energy in NRIs and thanked ICANN for support
> of NRIs across many regions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *8. Any other Business  *
>
>
>
> There was little time for any real discussion.  OCL flagged CCWG F2F
> Meeting on the Thursday and Nigel noted that all were welcome to join the
> CCWG IG; all we needed were dome details and a mail address.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *GE, ICANN; 18/3 *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180322/a3eab6b9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list