[ccwg-internet-governance] Scheduling meetings at ICANN63

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Oct 10 10:11:40 UTC 2018


Dear Farzaneh,

thanks for following up on the Public meeting.

On 10/10/2018 07:20, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Hi 
>
> I would like to know who is on the first panel. and I would like to
> see a description that can attract those who are not automatically
> attracted to this session and whom we need to convince not the already
> convinced. 
>
> "This Session will take a high-level look (and have an equally
> high-level discussion) on external Internet policy issues potentially
> affecting ICANN, whether at UN, ITU or at WIPO. Will also hear more
> about the High-Level UN Panel on Digital Cooperation and the
> forthcoming 2018 IGF."
>
> Please name some of these external policy issues that can
> "potentially" affect ICANN. Because saying whether at the UN, ITU or
> at WIPO is too broad. and we have the high-level panel on digital
> cooperation? This panel was convened recently and frankly, I don't see
> its relevance.

This agenda is still in its early stage of development. We have a basic
framework, based on the discussion of the last call of the CCWG IG, but
this needs to be further refined. Can I call on members of this group to
highlight which processes we should focus on? I agree with you that at
present, the list is not focussed enough.
In our August call, https://community.icann.org/x/wBBpBQ the discussion
came to the conclusion that we could have three topics, IGF, PP-18 and
UN Panel.

May I therefore suggest the following:

1. Welcome, Introduction

2. IGF Paris 2018
Key questions: what are we likely to expect at this IGF? What are
ICANN's sessions? What are the topics under discussion that might affect
ICANN directly?

3. ITU Plenipot 18
A discussion about the proposals from member states that affect ICANN
directly.

4. UN Panel on Digital Cooperation
An introduction on what this panel is expected to do.

5. Closing remarks

 Nigel, in some conversations, mentioned that we could get some high
level speakers from the GAC HLM to join us. I'll leave it to him to
explain whom he was thinking of. Having high level speakers is helpful
in bringing more people in the room and raising the level of the discussion.

>
> And I'd like to know your list of speakers. The fate of this group
> will remain uncertain if we don't change our approach. Have we ever
> invited David Kaye to talk about UN, online freedom of speech and
> ICANN? Have we ever invited the UNGGE chair to tell us whether or not
> their efforts would have affected ICANN? (well they are done now but
> yeah). Then there are digital trade agreements and WTO. What are the
> developments there? Could it potentially affect ICANN? No? then lets
> not talk about it! If yes, lets talk about it!

This CCWG has no funding for bringing in speakers. If these speakers are
already attending the ICANN meeting then yes, of course, these would be
great speakers. But this group will only know the availability of such
speakers if members in the group point this out in advance. Personally I
would love to have different speakers than our usual suspects in order
to broaden the discussion.
It is also worth remembering that this CCWG does not have full time
staff to support it, not does it have any support from the ICANN policy
team. We are essentially resting on the shoulders of mainly Nigel
Hickson for our support, and we all know that Nigel is already a very
busy person. So when it comes to finding speakers and building panels,
your collaboration is vital. In addition, I know that our communication
has been poor when comparing to ePDP or indeed any other PDP or CCWG out
there. Again - in the past we have had to ask an external consultant to
produce a report due to overwork of Nigel. The group suffers criticism
for not producing a report and then when it produces one it received
criticism for paying someone to produce it.

>
> We have to talk about issues and groups that are more likely to
> make binding decisions through treaties etc that affect ICANN and its
> stakeholders' policy development. High level panels won't have any
> effect. Even a good analysis of NTIA call for comments would be more
> eye-opening. 
>
> I think we really have to be issue specific instead of venue specific.
> I see ITU in the description. ITU is still functioning?

Well -- how about in the perspective I have suggested in the agenda above?

>
> Are we gonna talk about data localization its potential effect on DNS
> and IGOs activities with that regard?

An interesting angle. This has been around for a while - are you seeing
a shift in this?

>
> Also I would like to hear from Nigel and other ICANN staff members
> about their participation in these UN/international forums. Is Veni
> around? What is happening up in UN New York Veni? Anything ICANN related?

There was a good update on our August call. Veni joined us from New
York. I think that the public session could focus on the topics listed
above and the more general updates on ICANN staff action in New York,
Geneva and elsewhere can remain in the F2F meeting with the BWG IG in
attendance?
Kindest regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20181010/80d9172f/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list