[ccwg-internet-governance] Scheduling meetings at ICANN63

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Wed Oct 10 11:45:35 UTC 2018


Hi Olivier

My comments on your agenda:

Discussing what we will do at IGF is not bad. But focusing on that only is
not super productive either. I think the topics that could affect ICANN is
interesting. So perhaps this could be an angle. As I said it should not be
hypothetical  like what if aliens take over ICANN and should be more or
less about a law, potential policy, regulation that can affect us directly.
I know of two at least.
I wish IGF was more about IG this year. But it is not.


And Plenipot. How could I forget this important meeting. I know that some
of our ICANN attendees are going. Perhaps we invite them to talk about
their plans?

I don't know what the enthusiasm about the UN panel is but what can I say.

As to inviting people from around the world who actually lead processes
that might affect us, they usually have their own budget. If they see their
work and what they are leading will have a meaningful impact on ICANN if
successful they will attend. In the meantime we actually have people who
follow those processes we can ask them for an update.

It is frustrating when you and  Nigel dont receive much help and feedback
is not forthcoming. we don't have to be too ambitious. Every  other meeting
we mention  what we have been doing for improving the group's work. This is
supposed to be a long term group. I don't think our deliverables and
performance should be compared to a pdp.





***

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 rem

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:11 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20181010/7b783331/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list