[Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG

Farell Folly farellfolly at gmail.com
Sun Apr 30 14:08:37 EEST 2017 

Good job Lucas

Proposals 1, 2 and 5 sound good too me

1- because this a hot topic in ICANN  and the undergoing discussions in RDS
PDP WG focus on the next gen. We have materials ready for that

2 and 5 because of their particular focus on users.

Best Regards
@__f_f__
about.me/farell
________________________________.
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 30 avr. 2017 03:57, "Lucas Moura" <moura.lucas at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hey everyone ,
> Related to DNS Security, below are some topics that I think that would be
> okay to cover in a IGF workshop. As long our time is running short, below
> are some ideas how to deal with the break a part moment of the workshop
> 1. Whois Privacy (proxy whois and the relationship with abuse of domains)
> 2. indentifier technology health indicator and how this affects the nom
> comercial users
> 3. How the Urds are affecting nom commercial users in the internet
> governance ecosystem
> 4. Ways to approach Security groups(like SSAC and RSSAC) in Icann to the
> groups like NCUC
> 5. How to build a better relationship between "user" community and the
> security community ( and how this relationship can become a win-win one)
> 6. How to enable groups like  Ralos to participate and contribute to the
> security of Dns industry
> 7. A hands on with the challenges of IDN and the newGTLD related to
> security and stability of DNS.
>  Before the break a part moment would be nice if we could explain in a
> nutshell the Dns security scenario and the role of groups like NCSG.
> Maybe use as example the participation of someone from the SSR2 review
> group to show some "channels" that already exists in this area.
>
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 at 17:37 Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>>
>>
>> As I mentioned on the google doc - I polled th ssac and heard back th
>> following:
>>
>> * there's an interest and willingness to collaborate on this proposal .
>> Special ally, there's an interest to bring a Security , operations and
>> technical perspective (if that is of interest)
>> * ssac members available
>>
>> I polled the ssac and At least 2 members got back to me who would be
>> happy to participate on the panel (in person or virtually)
>>
>> - the two persons are -
>> 1. Ben Butler from GoDaddy who likely would be able to speak to RDS/Whois
>> , domain hijacking and takedown
>> 2. Jeff Bedser , who is more a cyber investigations expert who can speak
>> to law enforcement , takedown as well as cooperation that's needed when
>> doing investigations for ip takedowns and cybercrime
>>
>> * if a DNS operations , DNSSEC or registry operations is also desired,
>> let me know and I'll teach out directly to others on the ssac who have, in
>> the past, participated such as Merike Kaeo
>>
>> * ssac has contacts with law enforcement community . If that perspective
>> is desired and can be added , let me know to see if I can get the FBI
>> contact I mentioned earlier to confirm (who likely will attend anyway)
>>
>> Let me know so I can follow-up accordingly
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> --
>> Robert Guerra
>>
>> From: Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>> Date: April 29, 2017 at 12:27:48 PM
>> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> <farellfolly at gmail.com>
>> CC: Kuerbis, Brenden N <brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
>> <brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, Robert Guerra
>> <rguerra at privaterra.org> <rguerra at privaterra.org>, igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
>> <igf-team at lists.ncsg.is> <igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>, William Drake
>> <wjdrake at gmail.com> <wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>
>> Subject:  Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
>>
>> Agree 100% on with Bill, unless someone has something already cooked that
>>> we can go behind, let's reach out to those experts, and hope some others
>>> ncsg experts follow, thanks James !!! I am not an expert but I think the
>>> topic is something different, new and concrete compared to other panels and
>>> our usual work, worth for a try. So even if it is not my field I am more
>>> than willing to fully support and engage.
>>>
>>> If by the end of today we don't have any new opinions I say let's bring
>>> the experts we have in our contacts. I know there is a civil society
>>> cibersecurity approach to DNS!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2017 8:37 a.m., "Farell Folly" <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 Martin and William.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> @__f_f__
>>>> about.me/farell
>>>> ________________________________.
>>>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>>> Le 29 avr. 2017 07:45, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> So if time pressures and switching costs mean that NCSG wants to to
>>>>> stick with the blue skies idea of DNS security issues for its IGF proposal
>>>>> this year, we’re going to need some engagement from people who know these
>>>>> issues well.  James Gannon is here in the group and can certainly help a
>>>>> lot if he has the bandwidth, not sure who else feels close enough to the
>>>>> topic.  Folks please speak up if you’re feel you’re in a position to help
>>>>> lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also suggest we try to get some guidance from friendly folks
>>>>> we know who are subject experts on the issues.  Here’s some suggestions of
>>>>> people who could a) be speakers if they’re coming to Geneva and willing and
>>>>> b) either way could help craft a session description and agenda if they’re
>>>>> inclined:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Brenden Kuerbis from NCUC/SG (who I’m taking the liberty of Ccing
>>>>> without asking him first, sorry)
>>>>>
>>>>> From the SSAC https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ssac-
>>>>> biographies-2017-02-16-en
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Robert Guerra (also on the Cc as he expressed interest in talking
>>>>> about security @ IGF in another convo)
>>>>> 3. Patrik Fältström (SSAC Chair)
>>>>> 4. Mark Seiden
>>>>> 5. Suzanne Woolf
>>>>> 6. Ram Mohan
>>>>> 7. Don Blumenthal
>>>>>
>>>>> If we could get these folks engaged we’d have good guidance and (if
>>>>> they’re coming and willing) the start of a good panel, with private
>>>>> sector/technical community/civil society.  It would need geo/gender balance
>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people agree with this approach we could write to them and try to
>>>>> get something going.  Choice of format would depend how many bodies we have
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meanwhile, Brenden and Robert, your thoughts please.  Martin’s
>>>>> place holder description would obviously need to be built out and specified
>>>>> in keeping with the IGF proposal form which asks for agenda and description
>>>>> of the convo flow etc:
>>>>>
>>>>> *The workshop will look at cybersecurity specifically in relation to
>>>>> DNS, including management interfaces, owner authentication processes,
>>>>> RDS/whois and related problems like domain hijacking, privacy endangerment,
>>>>> spam etc, not from purely technical perspective but also in how they should
>>>>> affect ICANN policy. The idea is that even non-technical people developing
>>>>> policy should acquire an understanding on how and what kind of security
>>>>> issues they should consider when making policy decisions.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 19:27, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
>>>>> mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> Because of time we cannot go into detail on each subject, I would
>>>>> suggest to choose one and just work with it. We may not all be experts but
>>>>> we should be able to bring them. We can change it to other besides Security
>>>>> as long as you have already something sort out.  To save time I suggest we
>>>>> use all the same setting we used last year that was successful. If we can
>>>>> agree on the subject, the more time consuming and difficult will be to get
>>>>> the speakers, although her ewe might need Bill guidance, I think we can
>>>>> change this a little bit later in order to submit it on time. If you
>>>>> already have a subject to do that we can write down and work around this is
>>>>> your time to talk. All ideas are welcomed, have always been.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here I summarize the question we need to answer so you can just answer
>>>>> this email instead of going to the doc, I will then consolidate things on
>>>>> the doc.
>>>>>
>>>>> *1) ¿Session Format?**
>>>>> We can go for the 60 Min Break-out Group Discussions, we can also go
>>>>> for the 90 minutes it really depends on what we have to do. We could use
>>>>> the same format that we used last year here.
>>>>>
>>>>> *2) Session Format Description: *
>>>>> The easiest way it to have multi-stakeholder balanced roundtable with
>>>>> the basic subjects of the agenda and open the floor for in-site/remote
>>>>> participation. Again, if anyone have in mind an already thought idea for
>>>>> this just bring it in.
>>>>>
>>>>> *3) Proposer and co-proposer: *
>>>>> NCSG chair, Tapani and who ever is co-hosting the workshop, if we are
>>>>> going for cybersecurity then it should be someone with an organization
>>>>> regarding that.
>>>>>
>>>>> *4) Speakers*
>>>>> *Depending on the subject. If you have names for the cybersecurity
>>>>> let’s start listing that, we can maybe find that co-host there if it is not
>>>>> already in this list.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *5) Content of the Session * (we outlined ciber security, but you
>>>>> can use this space if you have an alternative) 5.1) outline for the session*
>>>>> A workshop in Internet Governance Forum on cybersecurity and DNS.
>>>>> *5.2) description of the intended agenda for the session and the
>>>>> issues that will be discussed.*
>>>>> The workshop will look at cybersecurity specifically in relation to
>>>>> DNS, including management interfaces, owner authentication processes,
>>>>> RDS/whois and related problems like domain hijacking, privacy endangerment,
>>>>> spam etc, not from purely technical perspective but also in how they should
>>>>> affect ICANN policy. The idea is that even non-technical people developing
>>>>> policy should acquire an understanding on how and what kind of security
>>>>> issues they should consider when making policy decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> *6) Relevance of the Issue **
>>>>> Please provide a concise description of the Internet Governance issue
>>>>> that your session will explore, including how this issue relates to
>>>>> Internet governance broadly, as well as to the main theme of IGF 2017:
>>>>> “Shape Your Digital Future!” In other words, please tell us why this
>>>>> workshop is important to include in the IGF programme.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *7) Interventions *Same model as last year
>>>>>
>>>>> *8) Diversity*
>>>>>
>>>>> *9) Here we need people that are going to be in the IGF already:*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *9.1) Onsite Moderator  9.2) Online Moderator  9.3) Rapporteur*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *10) Online Participation * Yes, we will have remote acces and
>>>>> moderators to que any on-line participation into the room.*
>>>>>
>>>>> *11) Discussion facilitation *We can use the same model as last year
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Past IGF Participation*
>>>>> *History in IGF :* How many other workshop has the NCSG and
>>>>> Co-organziers have? Report Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *VOLUNTARY INFORMATION / RESOURCES FOR PROPOSERS*
>>>>> XVIII. Sustainable Development Goals
>>>>>
>>>>> If your workshop proposal is based upon one or more of the UN
>>>>> Sustainable Development Goals, please indicate which numbers here. Note
>>>>> that this information is voluntary and collected for programming purposes
>>>>> only; this item has no bearing on the MAG’s evaluation of your workshop
>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> XIX. Connecting with IGF Intersessional Groups & NRIs
>>>>>
>>>>> If you would like to incorporate content/speakers related to the IGF’s
>>>>> intersessional work or the National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) into
>>>>> your workshop, please indicate which of the following would be of interest.
>>>>> To the extent possible, the MAG/IGF Secretariat will provide contacts for
>>>>> your outreach to pertinent points of contact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Practice Forums
>>>>>
>>>>> Information
>>>>>
>>>>> Dynamic Coalitions
>>>>>
>>>>> Information
>>>>>
>>>>> National and Regional Initiatives
>>>>>
>>>>> Information
>>>>>
>>>>> XX. Connecting with International or Other Relevant Organizations
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are interested in involving in your workshop any of the
>>>>> numerous organizations or subject matter experts based in Geneva (UN
>>>>> Agencies, NGOs, academia, think tanks, etc.), please indicate your interest
>>>>> above. Please find a selection of such organizations at:
>>>>> http://dig.watch/igf2017 For comprehensive information on
>>>>> “International Geneva” please consult: http://www.genIGF
>>>>> <http://www.genigf/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 4:42 AM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> So what do we decide? Regarding the short deadline, we should take a
>>>>> decision  today  whether we do the initial proposal or not (and quickly
>>>>> vote for another, if not).
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>> @__f_f__
>>>>> about.me/farell
>>>>> ________________________________.
>>>>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>>>> Le 26 avr. 2017 2:43 PM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I didn't mean to upset the apple cart here, especially since at
>>>>>> the outset I’d suggested we might consider security.  But I’m looking now
>>>>>> at a multi-person consensus process that has to finish a week from today,
>>>>>> coupled with a topic on which many of us may not be subject matter experts,
>>>>>> and I’m just wondering if this is sensible or we should try something that
>>>>>> would come a lot easier to us?  I organized I think seven approved workshop
>>>>>> proposals for NCUC and NCSG between 2013-2015 and they were each time
>>>>>> consuming. So I’m inclined to say that if NCSG is going to get something
>>>>>> out quickly that meets the MAG’s criteria there’s no time for navel
>>>>>> gazing.  Take a topic we know well and can populate easily and start doing
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We’ve done a number of these on civil society experiences in ICANN
>>>>>> and their wider implications so that might be a bit tired by now.  But
>>>>>> maybe a hot substantive issue, like ICANN jurisdiction, or CS @ ICANN as a
>>>>>> model for other IG, or development aspects of ICANN, etc…?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 15:22, Louise Marie Hurel <
>>>>>> louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree with Bill when he says that it is challenging to pin down
>>>>>> security @ ICANN. We should keep in mind that not all people who attend the
>>>>>> IGF are familiar with discussions at ICANN -- and if it is challenging for
>>>>>> us (at least for me) to understand what are the borderlines
>>>>>> of cybersecurity within ICANN, imagine for people outside it. However, I do
>>>>>> believe that this session could contribute to a broader discussion about
>>>>>> cybersecurity governance (and thus the identification of overlapping spaces
>>>>>> for collaboration and interaction with other actors/institutions within
>>>>>> this field).
>>>>>> If the breakout session is the desired format, I'd suggest that we
>>>>>> need to think about how we are going to make it more inclusive in the sense
>>>>>> of leveraging between "going deeper into DNS security" (for example) and
>>>>>> "interacting with a wider public" -- as Martin suggested: "The idea
>>>>>> is that even non-technical people developing policy should acquire an
>>>>>> understanding of how and what kind of security issues they should consider
>>>>>> when making policy decisions."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know most of our agendas are loaded with calls, but perhaps
>>>>>> scheduling a one might help us in tackling some of these points more
>>>>>> rapidly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Louise
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2017-04-26 5:23 GMT-03:00 AbdulRasheed Tamton <rasheedt.c at stc.com.sa>
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Happy to be part of the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can anyone put some pointers for the subject so that it would be
>>>>>>> more easier for us to start with. I have already read mail from Martin and
>>>>>>> others but still would like to get the above, if anyone can really do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BR,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rasheed Tamton.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * From:* Igf-team [mailto:igf-team-bounces at lists.ncsg.is] *On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of* Farell Folly
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:56 AM
>>>>>>> *To:* William Drake
>>>>>>> *Cc:* igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks  Martins for reaching. @William is right about how to choose
>>>>>>> the topic and what are the reasons behind the choice of Security and DNS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest we give today (NLT tomorrow) as deadline for anyone who
>>>>>>> would like to make any other suggestion. Otherwise, me must try and
>>>>>>> increase our chance to  win application  for this one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>>>> @__f_f__
>>>>>>> about.me/farell
>>>>>>> ________________________________.
>>>>>>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 25 avr. 2017 15:53, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the boot-up Martin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m in the middle of organizing another IGF workshop proposal at the
>>>>>>> moment so I thought I’d flag a couple things. It looks like we have over 30
>>>>>>> people in this group, which is great. I don’t know if everyone is equally
>>>>>>> familiar with how the IGF workshop proposal process works, or how the
>>>>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG) evaluates proposals.  But it is
>>>>>>> an increasingly competitive and difficult business, they usually get well
>>>>>>> over 200 proposals for under 100 workshop slots, so it’s important to
>>>>>>> maximize the fit with their multiple and increasingly time-consuming
>>>>>>> guidelines.  There are about five documents at the URL Martin shared one
>>>>>>> could look at in this regard.  Bottom line, the proposal needs to be crisp
>>>>>>> and provocative in content; it needs co-sponsors from other organizations
>>>>>>> (preferably not civil society); the speakers need to be very
>>>>>>> multistakeholder and diverse (geo/gender/perspective/etc), and we have to
>>>>>>> have full contact and other details on them; there needs to be a plan for
>>>>>>> remote participation; all the roles must be filled, so we need names of
>>>>>>> people we know will come to Geneva in December; and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  All a reasonably tall order given that the deadline for submission
>>>>>>> is a week from tomorrow.  This being the case, it will be important to
>>>>>>> reach agreement quickly on things like text so that outreach to potential
>>>>>>> speakers, co-sponsors etc. can begin in earnest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see Martin has indicated on the Google doc the choice of format as
>>>>>>> 60 minute break out session.  I’ve organized workshops at every IGF except
>>>>>>> last year (including a number of them for NCUC and NCSG) and have never
>>>>>>> done one of these, I’ve always done 90 minute panels or large roundtables.
>>>>>>> Maybe first we should talk about the format we want?  Also, are we set on
>>>>>>> security? I suggested it on the list when we were chatting about
>>>>>>> possibilities, but I’m not sure how easy it will be for us to organize
>>>>>>> something on security @ ICANN in the time available, what are the
>>>>>>> overarching questions we want to explore, what kinds of people could we
>>>>>>> get, etc.  So maybe it’d make sense to sort such threshold issues up front?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 16:28, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
>>>>>>> mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I sent this email wrong on sunday to the igf-team-request@ email.
>>>>>>> Here goes right, sorry for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Welcome to the email-list that Tapani so thoughtfully created for us
>>>>>>> to work on the NCSG Global IGF 2017 Workshop Proposal. A few month ago,
>>>>>>> after a very successful workshop in the Global IGF 2016, we lunched once
>>>>>>> again the idea to do a workshop for the 2017 IGF, after a few rounds of
>>>>>>> ideas in discussions we submitted the request to ICANN and they approved
>>>>>>> our project.At the end of this email I copy the details that outline the
>>>>>>> idea that we shared with ICANN, originally given by William Drake (a.k.a
>>>>>>> Bill) in the NCSG list among other good ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those who might be new to the process, we now have to draft and
>>>>>>> present a Workshop proposal to the MAG in order to get approved and be able
>>>>>>> to do it in the IGF meeting. Since the deadline to submit is May 3, we
>>>>>>> thought it would be wise to have our final draft for April 30 (which is end
>>>>>>> of next week). The time is very tight, but it is what it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here you can visit the terms and basic information for the proposal:
>>>>>>> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2017-call-for-
>>>>>>> workshop-proposals
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I created a googledoc with the official template of the proposal we
>>>>>>> have to submit, I propose we work on it as we move forward:
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10YJE8rT_
>>>>>>> yXNgtMDONb8tf4GMYMdmCIdcBIN6XOQSwo0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that the we try to channel the edits trough me on this
>>>>>>> list and just do comments on the google doc to not overwrite things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What we need to do now:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *First: *Defining the substantive focus more precisely and linking
>>>>>>> it clearly to ICANN stuff so it’s not redundant with all the other
>>>>>>> cybersecurity proposals the MAG will be reviewing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Second*: Identifying speakers;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, based on what we already outlined, we need to tackle that
>>>>>>> *First* task. I encourage you to read the outline below, the form
>>>>>>> in the google doc and the resources in the IGF web I link above. Once we
>>>>>>> finish that we can start making a pool of speakers to contact. I will be
>>>>>>> filling the draft as we move forward and you can comment the doc if you see
>>>>>>> something wrong or want to propose an answer or writing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each day I will try push the work so sorry in advanced if I spam a
>>>>>>> little this email list, but we only have a few days to draft this out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards to all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martín Silva
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Outline of the Workshop Idea:*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *1)Activity: Please describe your proposed activity in detail*
>>>>>>> A workshop in Internet Governance Forum on cybersecurity and DNS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The workshop will look at cybersecurity specifically in relation to
>>>>>>> DNS, including management interfaces, owner authentication
>>>>>>> processes, RDS/whois and related problems like domain hijacking, privacy
>>>>>>> endangerment, spam etc, not from purely technical perspective but also
>>>>>>> in how they should affect ICANN policy. The idea is that even non-technical
>>>>>>> people developing policy should acquire an understanding on how and what
>>>>>>> kind of security issues they should consider when making policy decisions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *2) Strategic Alignment. Which area of ICANN’s Strategic Plan does
>>>>>>> this request support?*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Support a healthy, stable and resilient unique identifier ecosystem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *3) Demographics. What audience(s), in which geographies, does your
>>>>>>> request target?*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All ICANN regional groups (NCSG has members in more than
>>>>>>> 100 countries).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *4) Deliverables. What arethe desired outcomes of your proposed
>>>>>>> activity?*
>>>>>>> Raised awareness about cybersecurity issues related to DNS and their
>>>>>>> policy implications; increased engagement in security work; report feeding
>>>>>>> into ICANN processes as well as other cybersecurity discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *5) Metrics. What measurements will you use to determine whether
>>>>>>> your activity achieves its desired outcomes?*
>>>>>>> Attendance, both onsite and online; increased participation
>>>>>>> on related working groups in ICANN and elsewhere; outcome document
>>>>>>> (report) that's useful as input to other fora like IGF Cybersecurity Best
>>>>>>> Practices forum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Igf-team mailing list
>>>>>>> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Igf-team mailing list
>>>>> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>>>>>   www.williamdrake.org
>>>>> ************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Igf-team mailing list
>>>>> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> Igf-team mailing list
>> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>>
> --
>
> Lucas de Moura
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/igf-team/attachments/20170430/a758bc41/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Igf-team mailing list