[ccwg-internet-governance] Action Items re: Organisation of an IGF Workshop (was: Re: CCWG-IG call of Thursday, March 28)

Lori Schulman lschulman at inta.org
Mon Apr 15 18:20:02 UTC 2019


Dear All,

I agree with the personal comments of Olivier and Muthusamy.  INTA has this issue as well.  We have a tough time getting our members to invest going to any meetings outside of ICANN.  At least I have the opportunity to represent INTA as a whole but, in terms of getting individual members to attend things like IGF,  it is an uphill climb.   The brands that you see at IGF tend to be the larger platforms and content owners which makes sense.  However, trying to get representatives from small and emerging economies/companies is extremely difficult.  In the event that INTA’s program proposal is chosen, we will be providing funding for a speaker from Ecuador.  2 years ago, we funded a speaker from Morocco for the WSIS.   Funding is critical for the type of diversity that is expected at IGF and other fora.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman



From: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 5:19 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>; Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>; ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org; desiree.cabrera at icann.org; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>; Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Action Items re: Organisation of an IGF Workshop (was: Re: CCWG-IG call of Thursday, March 28)

Dear Olivier,
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 3:42 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

this is to let you know that due to not having a consensus on the topic of submitting a proposal for an IGF Workshop, we have ended up not submitting a workshop proposal for IGF. I agree with Keith's and Julf's concerns that we have left this too late to have a polished proposal that gains consensus.

Whilst I agree that we need to address workshop proposals at an earlier stage in order to obtain more buy-in from the different parts of ICANN, the late stage discussions are mostly caused by participants not paying attention to a topic until we are in the final deadline stage. With all of the other priorities that we have, this is somehow normal.

That said, I would like to kindly ask you that in the future, we address deadlines earlier than just a week before the deadline is due.

Coming back to the current workshop topic proposal, last week I got in touch with SSAC and RSSAC leadership and neither appeared to be keen to be involved - possibly because none of their participants are currently planning to attend the IGF.

The next paragraph I make in my personal capacity:

With ICANN pulling back from supporting members of the Community in attending the Global IGF and indeed many other events, volunteers increasingly appear simply not able to self-fund activities that they would undertake pro-bono to help with ICANN's image and explaining ICANN's message. The lack of understanding of some parts of our community, that coordinated engagement with these Global events outside of the ICANN bubble is very important indeed, is an ongoing concern for me. ICANN risks becoming an obscure, closed community with its own processes and own language, erecting walls for participation and rendering itself, like all closed communities,

+1 This is timely observation. There is a certain degree of insistence from the domain business sector to restrain alternate points of view, and to contain discussions from expanding to larger Internet forums where new approaches and solutions may be examined with greater fairness. The artificial limitations on ICANN's mission serve to perpetuate the imbalances. Walls are erected, often by design, seen and unseen, that contain participation and restrain the free flow of ideas making the ICANN multi-stakeholder process increasingly closed. ICANN Multi Stakeholder process is meant to evolve further, as a model to be emulated beyond the DNS.  Narrow concerns slow down the process of building trust.

(sent with a request to the list coordinator and Community staff coordinators to draw attention to this message to the list and a previous message replying to Keith, still held in moderation. )

Sivasubramanian M


eventually obsolete.

Chair hat back on:
Not participating at the IGF is not the end of the world and this group has a lot of work on its plate. We need to prepare for our F2F meeting with the Board Working Group on Internet Governance at the Marrakesh meeting. Please suggest topics for our discussions then. As a kind reminder, the Marrakesh meeting being a shorter, 4-day policy forum, we have only had traditionally one face to face meeting and have skipped the Public Meeting. There simply is no available slot in the very tight schedule.

Kindest regards,

Olivier
On 14/04/2019 09:35, Lori Schulman wrote:
I agree with Marilyn.  ICANN should always submit thoughtful proposals especially if ICANN is to maintain its place as a though leader in internet governance.  My issue is that this proposal needed a simple project plan so that we could assign someone to write narrative, someone to confirm speakers, someone to find resources to link to, etc. so we have a compliant, cohesive proposal.  We aren’t there with this concept and I don’t think that we will be unless 1 person jumps in now  for each of the tasks that I have described above and we pull this out of our hats.

In terms of vetting, I do recall that we agreed that it is impractical to have all SO/AC’s vet but we should have a proposal in good enough form that we can show to various subject matter experts, etc. within our community for feedback.

I am not in the position to manage this last minute proposal as I will be in transit most of today and I am on CET time.   I won’t be home until  at least 9 pm CET and this is due at 1 am CET if I recall.

What I am willing to do is volunteer now to coordinate whatever the next proposal is and pass on this one.  I am also willing  do a review /edit as soon as I am home if some else takes the lead in the next 6-8 hours.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman



From: ccwg-internet-governance <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org><mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 9:02 PM
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Action Items re: Organisation of an IGF Workshop (was: Re: CCWG-IG call of Thursday, March 28)

On 13-04-19 16:52, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

> With 24Hr to go until the deadline, is this the general feeling in the
> group?

I definitely agree with Keith.

Julf

_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance



_______________________________________________

ccwg-internet-governance mailing list

ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto: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/20190415/bb68da49/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list