[ccwg-internet-governance] Scheduling meetings at ICANN63

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Sun Oct 14 20:55:27 UTC 2018


Dear Farzaneh,

thank you for your follow-up. Please be so kind to find my responses in
your text:

On 10/10/2018 17:15, farzaneh badii wrote:
> 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 agree that taking the time to list what sessions ICANN is organising
at IGF is not a good use of our limited time and I propose that we have
a WIKI page created for this and just point participants to that WIKI
page, linked from the Agenda. In this section, focussing on items that
are likely to affect ICANN is wise.

> I wish IGF was more about IG this year. But it is not. 
>

There is an increased focus on the SDGs which does make it somehow hybrid.

>
> 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?

JImson Olufuye will be attending ICANN63, and will also be part of the
delegation from Nigeria to the ITU. I wonder if anyone in our group
would be on a delegation? For example Jim Prendergast? Or you could
suggest anyone else too?

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

It's a hot topic at present and since we have the chance of having its
secretariat ready to give some information about it, it's an opportunity.

>
> 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.

Good point. But then we probably have to be more strategic about these
things. The current Damocles sword hanging over this group doesn't help,
though, but I would hope that with a confirmation from SOs/ACs that they
support the proposed CCEG, we can start anew and be more ambitious when
it comes to inviting speakers.

>
> 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.

Once we get into CCEG mode, I am hoping it will be a different state of
affairs.
Kindest regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20181015/ec2f135b/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list