<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family:sans-serif"><div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">Thanks all for the posts and ideas related to the proposal. I’ll review the latest draft later today and in additional details as requested by Bill and Frarzaneh.</p>
<p dir="auto">In the meantime, let me comment on Lucas’s earlier note (below).. Let me know if any of the comments might be worthwhile to include in the workshop proposal (text ,agenda, etc)</p>
<p dir="auto">regards</p>
<p dir="auto">Robert</p>
<p dir="auto">--<br>
Robert Guerra<br>
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org" style="color:#3983C4">rguerra@privaterra.org</a><br>
PGP Keys : <a href="https://keybase.io/rguerra" style="color:#3983C4">https://keybase.io/rguerra</a></p>
<p dir="auto">On 29 Apr 2017, at 23:57, Lucas Moura wrote:</p>
<p dir="auto"></p></div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">Hey everyone ,</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto">Related to DNS Security, below are some topics that I think that would be<br>
okay to cover in a IGF workshop. As long our time is running short, below<br>
are some ideas how to deal with the break a part moment of the workshop</p>
</div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">Let’s develop a list of sub-points and/or leading questions for each of the items below we finally end up selecting.</p>
<p dir="auto"></p></div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">1. Whois Privacy (proxy whois and the relationship with abuse of domains)</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
<ul>
<li>Would be good to hear both sides of the conversation on this. Would be good to get a sense of the #’s here.. that is, how widely whois privacy (via proxy whois, and other mechanisms) is used and of those, what % is used for purposes (fraud, threats, etc) that are subject to takedown requests by Law Enforcement .</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">For this it would be good to get a 1. registrar perspective - Ben Butler from Godaddy would be good, and an 2. Cyber investigative view (Jeff bedser would be good). Both these names are from SSAC and have expressed an interest to participate (in person or virtually)</p>
<p dir="auto"></p></div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">2. indentifier technology health indicator and how this affects the nom<br>
comercial users<br>
3. How the Urds are affecting nom commercial users in the internet<br>
governance ecosystem</p>
</blockquote><br><p dir="auto">4. Ways to approach Security groups(like SSAC and RSSAC) in Icann to the groups like NCUC</p>
</div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">Worth expanding on this as it seems a bit generic. do you mean how to engage, on what issues issues, and how to build trust?</p>
<p dir="auto">It would be good to have a conversation that covers - past/existing - topics where the security community and user/non-commercial groups have collaborated as well as - new - efforts underway to build trust and work together to document interest controls and restrictions.</p>
<p dir="auto">To this later point, it would an opportunity to raise - common research - that has been taking place between s<br>
I’d go further, and present several examples of issues and research where user/non-commercial groups are collaborating </p>
<p dir="auto">Working together - both on policy and research - builds trust and collaboration. I could recommend speaker from Venezuela (who likely will be funded to attend the IGF) that can talk about the collaboration with IPE & LACNIC to using RIPE probes to document internet censorship and controls. </p>
<p dir="auto"></p></div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">5. How to build a better relationship between "user" community and the<br>
security community ( and how this relationship can become a win-win one)</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">See my answer to #4 above. In essence, better relationship should be based on finding ways to collaborate and build-trust. we might want to highlight some efforts.</p>
<p dir="auto"></p></div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">6. How to enable groups like Ralos to participate and contribute to the security of Dns industry</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">I’m a bit skeptical here. I just have my issues with the whole At-Large and RALO’s structure. That being said, my personal view is that - where they could be effective is in communications, outreach and user education.</p>
<p dir="auto">Let’s structure this a bit - 1. start with a presentation of what the the security issues of concern are, 2. present recommendations on what user/non-commercial groups can do, and 3. discuss next steps.</p>
<ol>
<li value="1">Presentation of the issues :</li>
</ol>
<p dir="auto">Let’s hear from the experts on what they believe the current and emerging security issues . Here’s where SSAC and LEA input could be helpful (Ben, Jeff - from SSAC, and Iranga from the FBI) could present top 3 existing and 3 emerging security issues that users should be educated about</p>
<p dir="auto">That would be followed by:</p>
<ol>
<li value="2">present recommendations on what user/non-commercial groups can do:</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>recommendation on how existing efforts (or not) are helpful, and what can be done.</li>
</ul>
<ol>
<li value="3">Discuss</li>
</ol>
<p dir="auto">NGOs & civil society on the panel reacts - agrees on what the experts have said. Be it on the issues that have been identified , approach taken, next steps - future collaboration that is possible.</p>
<p dir="auto"></p></div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">7. A hands on with the challenges of IDN and the newGTLD related to security and stability of DNS.</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
<p dir="auto">Suggest two issues that could be of interest that have security/stability issues:</p>
<ul>
<li><ul>
<li>homograph attacks
<a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/18/homograph_attack_again/" style="color:#3983C4">https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/18/homograph_attack_again/</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li><ul>
<li>Emoji’s in domain names
<a href="https://blog.uniteddomains.com/it-s-2016-where-are-our-emoji-domain-names-26215215fbd2" style="color:#3983C4">https://blog.uniteddomains.com/it-s-2016-where-are-our-emoji-domain-names-26215215fbd2</a>
<a href="https://panic.com/blog/the-worlds-first-emoji-domain/" style="color:#3983C4">https://panic.com/blog/the-worlds-first-emoji-domain/</a></li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto"></p></div>
<div style="white-space:normal"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#777; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 at 17:37 Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#999; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#999"><p dir="auto">Bill,<br>
<br>
<br>
As I mentioned on the google doc - I polled th ssac and heard back th<br>
following:<br>
<br>
* there's an interest and willingness to collaborate on this proposal .<br>
Special ally, there's an interest to bring a Security , operations and<br>
technical perspective (if that is of interest)<br>
* ssac members available<br>
<br>
I polled the ssac and At least 2 members got back to me who would be happy<br>
to participate on the panel (in person or virtually)<br>
<br>
- the two persons are -<br>
1. Ben Butler from GoDaddy who likely would be able to speak to RDS/Whois<br>
, domain hijacking and takedown<br>
2. Jeff Bedser , who is more a cyber investigations expert who can speak<br>
to law enforcement , takedown as well as cooperation that's needed when<br>
doing investigations for ip takedowns and cybercrime<br>
<br>
* if a DNS operations , DNSSEC or registry operations is also desired, let<br>
me know and I'll teach out directly to others on the ssac who have, in the<br>
past, participated such as Merike Kaeo<br>
<br>
* ssac has contacts with law enforcement community . If that perspective<br>
is desired and can be added , let me know to see if I can get the FBI<br>
contact I mentioned earlier to confirm (who likely will attend anyway)<br>
<br>
Let me know so I can follow-up accordingly<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Robert<br>
<br>
--<br>
Robert Guerra<br>
<br>
From: Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com><br>
<mpsilvavalent@gmail.com><br>
Date: April 29, 2017 at 12:27:48 PM<br>
To: Farell Folly <farellfolly@gmail.com> <farellfolly@gmail.com><br>
CC: Kuerbis, Brenden N <brenden.kuerbis@pubpolicy.gatech.edu><br>
<brenden.kuerbis@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, Robert Guerra<br>
<rguerra@privaterra.org> <rguerra@privaterra.org>, igf-team@lists.ncsg.is<br>
<igf-team@lists.ncsg.is> <igf-team@lists.ncsg.is>, William Drake<br>
<wjdrake@gmail.com> <wjdrake@gmail.com><br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG<br>
<br>
Agree 100% on with Bill, unless someone has something already cooked that</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB"><p dir="auto">we can go behind, let's reach out to those experts, and hope some others<br>
ncsg experts follow, thanks James !!! I am not an expert but I think the<br>
topic is something different, new and concrete compared to other panels and<br>
our usual work, worth for a try. So even if it is not my field I am more<br>
than willing to fully support and engage.<br>
<br>
If by the end of today we don't have any new opinions I say let's bring<br>
the experts we have in our contacts. I know there is a civil society<br>
cibersecurity approach to DNS!<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 29 Apr 2017 8:37 a.m., "Farell Folly" <farellfolly@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB"><p dir="auto">+1 Martin and William.<br>
<br>
Best Regards<br>
@__f_f__<br>
about.me/farell<br>
________________________________.<br>
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.<br>
Le 29 avr. 2017 07:45, "William Drake" <wjdrake@gmail.com> a écrit :<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB"><p dir="auto">Hi<br>
<br>
So if time pressures and switching costs mean that NCSG wants to to<br>
stick with the blue skies idea of DNS security issues for its IGF proposal<br>
this year, we’re going to need some engagement from people who know these<br>
issues well. James Gannon is here in the group and can certainly help a<br>
lot if he has the bandwidth, not sure who else feels close enough to the<br>
topic. Folks please speak up if you’re feel you’re in a position to help<br>
lead.<br>
<br>
I would also suggest we try to get some guidance from friendly folks we<br>
know who are subject experts on the issues. Here’s some suggestions of<br>
people who could a) be speakers if they’re coming to Geneva and willing and<br>
b) either way could help craft a session description and agenda if they’re<br>
inclined:<br>
<br>
1. Brenden Kuerbis from NCUC/SG (who I’m taking the liberty of Ccing<br>
without asking him first, sorry)<br>
<br>
From the SSAC<br>
<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ssac-biographies-2017-02-16-en" style="color:#BBB">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ssac-biographies-2017-02-16-en</a><br>
<br>
2. Robert Guerra (also on the Cc as he expressed interest in talking<br>
about security @ IGF in another convo)<br>
3. Patrik Fältström (SSAC Chair)<br>
4. Mark Seiden<br>
5. Suzanne Woolf<br>
6. Ram Mohan<br>
7. Don Blumenthal<br>
<br>
If we could get these folks engaged we’d have good guidance and (if<br>
they’re coming and willing) the start of a good panel, with private<br>
sector/technical community/civil society. It would need geo/gender balance<br>
as well.<br>
<br>
If people agree with this approach we could write to them and try to<br>
get something going. Choice of format would depend how many bodies we have<br>
etc.<br>
<br>
In the meanwhile, Brenden and Robert, your thoughts please. Martin’s<br>
place holder description would obviously need to be built out and specified<br>
in keeping with the IGF proposal form which asks for agenda and description<br>
of the convo flow etc:<br>
<br>
*The workshop will look at cybersecurity specifically in relation to<br>
DNS, including management interfaces, owner authentication processes,<br>
RDS/whois and related problems like domain hijacking, privacy endangerment,<br>
spam etc, not from purely technical perspective but also in how they should<br>
affect ICANN policy. The idea is that even non-technical people developing<br>
policy should acquire an understanding on how and what kind of security<br>
issues they should consider when making policy decisions.*<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
On Apr 28, 2017, at 19:27, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <<br>
mpsilvavalent@GMAIL.COM <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
Because of time we cannot go into detail on each subject, I would<br>
suggest to choose one and just work with it. We may not all be experts but<br>
we should be able to bring them. We can change it to other besides Security<br>
as long as you have already something sort out. To save time I suggest we<br>
use all the same setting we used last year that was successful. If we can<br>
agree on the subject, the more time consuming and difficult will be to get<br>
the speakers, although her ewe might need Bill guidance, I think we can<br>
change this a little bit later in order to submit it on time. If you<br>
already have a subject to do that we can write down and work around this is<br>
your time to talk. All ideas are welcomed, have always been.<br>
<br>
Here I summarize the question we need to answer so you can just answer<br>
this email instead of going to the doc, I will then consolidate things on<br>
the doc.<br>
<br>
*1) ¿Session Format?**<br>
We can go for the 60 Min Break-out Group Discussions, we can also go<br>
for the 90 minutes it really depends on what we have to do. We could use<br>
the same format that we used last year here.<br>
<br>
*2) Session Format Description: *<br>
The easiest way it to have multi-stakeholder balanced roundtable with<br>
the basic subjects of the agenda and open the floor for in-site/remote<br>
participation. Again, if anyone have in mind an already thought idea for<br>
this just bring it in.<br>
<br>
*3) Proposer and co-proposer: *<br>
NCSG chair, Tapani and who ever is co-hosting the workshop, if we are<br>
going for cybersecurity then it should be someone with an organization<br>
regarding that.<br>
<br>
*4) Speakers*<br>
*Depending on the subject. If you have names for the cybersecurity<br>
let’s start listing that, we can maybe find that co-host there if it is not<br>
already in this list.*<br>
<br>
<br>
*5) Content of the Session * (we outlined ciber security, but you<br>
can use this space if you have an alternative) 5.1) outline for the session*<br>
A workshop in Internet Governance Forum on cybersecurity and DNS.<br>
*5.2) description of the intended agenda for the session and the issues<br>
that will be discussed.*<br>
The workshop will look at cybersecurity specifically in relation to<br>
DNS, including management interfaces, owner authentication processes,<br>
RDS/whois and related problems like domain hijacking, privacy endangerment,<br>
spam etc, not from purely technical perspective but also in how they should<br>
affect ICANN policy. The idea is that even non-technical people developing<br>
policy should acquire an understanding on how and what kind of security<br>
issues they should consider when making policy decisions.<br>
<br>
*6) Relevance of the Issue **<br>
Please provide a concise description of the Internet Governance issue<br>
that your session will explore, including how this issue relates to<br>
Internet governance broadly, as well as to the main theme of IGF 2017:<br>
“Shape Your Digital Future!” In other words, please tell us why this<br>
workshop is important to include in the IGF programme.<br>
<br>
<br>
*7) Interventions *Same model as last year<br>
<br>
*8) Diversity*<br>
<br>
*9) Here we need people that are going to be in the IGF already:*<br>
<br>
<br>
*9.1) Onsite Moderator 9.2) Online Moderator 9.3) Rapporteur*<br>
<br>
<br>
*10) Online Participation * Yes, we will have remote acces and<br>
moderators to que any on-line participation into the room.*<br>
<br>
*11) Discussion facilitation *We can use the same model as last year<br>
<br>
<br>
*Past IGF Participation*<br>
*History in IGF :* How many other workshop has the NCSG and<br>
Co-organziers have? Report Links<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*VOLUNTARY INFORMATION / RESOURCES FOR PROPOSERS*<br>
XVIII. Sustainable Development Goals<br>
<br>
If your workshop proposal is based upon one or more of the UN<br>
Sustainable Development Goals, please indicate which numbers here. Note<br>
that this information is voluntary and collected for programming purposes<br>
only; this item has no bearing on the MAG’s evaluation of your workshop<br>
proposal.<br>
<br>
XIX. Connecting with IGF Intersessional Groups & NRIs<br>
<br>
If you would like to incorporate content/speakers related to the IGF’s<br>
intersessional work or the National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) into<br>
your workshop, please indicate which of the following would be of interest.<br>
To the extent possible, the MAG/IGF Secretariat will provide contacts for<br>
your outreach to pertinent points of contact.<br>
<br>
Best Practice Forums<br>
<br>
Information<br>
<br>
Dynamic Coalitions<br>
<br>
Information<br>
<br>
National and Regional Initiatives<br>
<br>
Information<br>
<br>
XX. Connecting with International or Other Relevant Organizations<br>
<br>
If you are interested in involving in your workshop any of the numerous<br>
organizations or subject matter experts based in Geneva (UN Agencies, NGOs,<br>
academia, think tanks, etc.), please indicate your interest above. Please<br>
find a selection of such organizations at: <a href="http://dig.watch/igf2017" style="color:#BBB">http://dig.watch/igf2017</a> For<br>
comprehensive information on “International Geneva” please consult:<br>
<a href="http://www.genIGF" style="color:#BBB">http://www.genIGF</a> <<a href="http://www.genigf/" style="color:#BBB">http://www.genigf/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Apr 28, 2017, at 4:42 AM, Farell Folly <farellfolly@gmail.com><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear All,<br>
<br>
So what do we decide? Regarding the short deadline, we should take a<br>
decision today whether we do the initial proposal or not (and quickly<br>
vote for another, if not).<br>
<br>
Best Regards<br>
@__f_f__<br>
about.me/farell<br>
________________________________.<br>
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.<br>
Le 26 avr. 2017 2:43 PM, "William Drake" <wjdrake@gmail.com> a écrit :<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB"><p dir="auto">Hi<br>
<br>
Well, I didn't mean to upset the apple cart here, especially since at<br>
the outset I’d suggested we might consider security. But I’m looking now<br>
at a multi-person consensus process that has to finish a week from today,<br>
coupled with a topic on which many of us may not be subject matter experts,<br>
and I’m just wondering if this is sensible or we should try something that<br>
would come a lot easier to us? I organized I think seven approved workshop<br>
proposals for NCUC and NCSG between 2013-2015 and they were each time<br>
consuming. So I’m inclined to say that if NCSG is going to get something<br>
out quickly that meets the MAG’s criteria there’s no time for navel<br>
gazing. Take a topic we know well and can populate easily and start doing<br>
it.<br>
<br>
We’ve done a number of these on civil society experiences in ICANN and<br>
their wider implications so that might be a bit tired by now. But maybe a<br>
hot substantive issue, like ICANN jurisdiction, or CS @ ICANN as a model<br>
for other IG, or development aspects of ICANN, etc…?<br>
<br>
BD<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Apr 26, 2017, at 15:22, Louise Marie Hurel <<br>
louise.marie.hsd@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Agree with Bill when he says that it is challenging to pin down<br>
security @ ICANN. We should keep in mind that not all people who attend the<br>
IGF are familiar with discussions at ICANN -- and if it is challenging for<br>
us (at least for me) to understand what are the borderlines<br>
of cybersecurity within ICANN, imagine for people outside it. However, I do<br>
believe that this session could contribute to a broader discussion about<br>
cybersecurity governance (and thus the identification of overlapping spaces<br>
for collaboration and interaction with other actors/institutions within<br>
this field).<br>
If the breakout session is the desired format, I'd suggest that we<br>
need to think about how we are going to make it more inclusive in the sense<br>
of leveraging between "going deeper into DNS security" (for example) and<br>
"interacting with a wider public" -- as Martin suggested: "The idea<br>
is that even non-technical people developing policy should acquire an<br>
understanding of how and what kind of security issues they should consider<br>
when making policy decisions."<br>
<br>
I know most of our agendas are loaded with calls, but perhaps<br>
scheduling a one might help us in tackling some of these points more<br>
rapidly.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Louise<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2017-04-26 5:23 GMT-03:00 AbdulRasheed Tamton <rasheedt.c@stc.com.sa>:<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #777; color:#BBB; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#BBB"><p dir="auto">Dear All,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Happy to be part of the list.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Can anyone put some pointers for the subject so that it would be more<br>
easier for us to start with. I have already read mail from Martin and<br>
others but still would like to get the above, if anyone can really do it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
BR,<br>
<br>
Rasheed Tamton.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
* From:* Igf-team [<a href="mailto:igf-team-bounces@lists.ncsg.is" style="color:#BBB">mailto:igf-team-bounces@lists.ncsg.is</a>] *On Behalf<br>
Of* Farell Folly<br>
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:56 AM<br>
*To:* William Drake<br>
*Cc:* igf-team@lists.ncsg.is<br>
*Subject:* Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Thanks Martins for reaching. @William is right about how to choose<br>
the topic and what are the reasons behind the choice of Security and DNS.<br>
<br>
I suggest we give today (NLT tomorrow) as deadline for anyone who<br>
would like to make any other suggestion. Otherwise, me must try and<br>
increase our chance to win application for this one.<br>
<br>
Best Regards<br>
@__f_f__<br>
about.me/farell<br>
________________________________.<br>
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.<br>
<br>
Le 25 avr. 2017 15:53, "William Drake" <wjdrake@gmail.com> a écrit :<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for the boot-up Martin.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I’m in the middle of organizing another IGF workshop proposal at the<br>
moment so I thought I’d flag a couple things. It looks like we have over 30<br>
people in this group, which is great. I don’t know if everyone is equally<br>
familiar with how the IGF workshop proposal process works, or how the<br>
Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG) evaluates proposals. But it is<br>
an increasingly competitive and difficult business, they usually get well<br>
over 200 proposals for under 100 workshop slots, so it’s important to<br>
maximize the fit with their multiple and increasingly time-consuming<br>
guidelines. There are about five documents at the URL Martin shared one<br>
could look at in this regard. Bottom line, the proposal needs to be crisp<br>
and provocative in content; it needs co-sponsors from other organizations<br>
(preferably not civil society); the speakers need to be very<br>
multistakeholder and diverse (geo/gender/perspective/etc), and we have to<br>
have full contact and other details on them; there needs to be a plan for<br>
remote participation; all the roles must be filled, so we need names of<br>
people we know will come to Geneva in December; and so on.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
All a reasonably tall order given that the deadline for submission<br>
is a week from tomorrow. This being the case, it will be important to<br>
reach agreement quickly on things like text so that outreach to potential<br>
speakers, co-sponsors etc. can begin in earnest.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I see Martin has indicated on the Google doc the choice of format as<br>
60 minute break out session. I’ve organized workshops at every IGF except<br>
last year (including a number of them for NCUC and NCSG) and have never<br>
done one of these, I’ve always done 90 minute panels or large roundtables.<br>
Maybe first we should talk about the format we want? Also, are we set on<br>
security? I suggested it on the list when we were chatting about<br>
possibilities, but I’m not sure how easy it will be for us to organize<br>
something on security @ ICANN in the time available, what are the<br>
overarching questions we want to explore, what kinds of people could we<br>
get, etc. So maybe it’d make sense to sort such threshold issues up front?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Apr 25, 2017, at 16:28, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <<br>
mpsilvavalent@GMAIL.COM <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I sent this email wrong on sunday to the igf-team-request@ email.<br>
Here goes right, sorry for that.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Welcome to the email-list that Tapani so thoughtfully created for us<br>
to work on the NCSG Global IGF 2017 Workshop Proposal. A few month ago,<br>
after a very successful workshop in the Global IGF 2016, we lunched once<br>
again the idea to do a workshop for the 2017 IGF, after a few rounds of<br>
ideas in discussions we submitted the request to ICANN and they approved<br>
our project.At the end of this email I copy the details that outline the<br>
idea that we shared with ICANN, originally given by William Drake (a.k.a<br>
Bill) in the NCSG list among other good ones.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For those who might be new to the process, we now have to draft and<br>
present a Workshop proposal to the MAG in order to get approved and be able<br>
to do it in the IGF meeting. Since the deadline to submit is May 3, we<br>
thought it would be wise to have our final draft for April 30 (which is end<br>
of next week). The time is very tight, but it is what it is.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Here you can visit the terms and basic information for the proposal:<br>
<a href="https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2017-call-for-workshop-proposals" style="color:#BBB">https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2017-call-for-workshop-proposals</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I created a googledoc with the official template of the proposal we<br>
have to submit, I propose we work on it as we move forward:<br>
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/10YJE8rT_yXNgtMDONb8tf4GMYMdmCIdcBIN6XOQSwo0/edit?usp=sharing" style="color:#BBB">https://docs.google.com/document/d/10YJE8rT_yXNgtMDONb8tf4GMYMdmCIdcBIN6XOQSwo0/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I propose that the we try to channel the edits trough me on this list<br>
and just do comments on the google doc to not overwrite things.<br>
<br>
What we need to do now:<br>
<br>
*First: *Defining the substantive focus more precisely and linking<br>
it clearly to ICANN stuff so it’s not redundant with all the other<br>
cybersecurity proposals the MAG will be reviewing.<br>
<br>
*Second*: Identifying speakers;<br>
<br>
So, based on what we already outlined, we need to tackle that *First* task.<br>
I encourage you to read the outline below, the form in the google doc and<br>
the resources in the IGF web I link above. Once we finish that we can start<br>
making a pool of speakers to contact. I will be filling the draft as we<br>
move forward and you can comment the doc if you see something wrong or want<br>
to propose an answer or writing.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Each day I will try push the work so sorry in advanced if I spam a<br>
little this email list, but we only have a few days to draft this out.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards to all,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Martín Silva<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*Outline of the Workshop Idea:*<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*1)Activity: Please describe your proposed activity in detail*<br>
A workshop in Internet Governance Forum on cybersecurity and DNS.<br>
<br>
The workshop will look at cybersecurity specifically in relation to<br>
DNS, including management interfaces, owner authentication<br>
processes, RDS/whois and related problems like domain hijacking, privacy<br>
endangerment, spam etc, not from purely technical perspective but also<br>
in how they should affect ICANN policy. The idea is that even non-technical<br>
people developing policy should acquire an understanding on how and what<br>
kind of security issues they should consider when making policy decisions.<br>
<br>
*2) Strategic Alignment. Which area of ICANN’s Strategic Plan does<br>
this request support?*<br>
<br>
Support a healthy, stable and resilient unique identifier ecosystem.<br>
<br>
*3) Demographics. What audience(s), in which geographies, does your<br>
request target?*<br>
<br>
<br>
All ICANN regional groups (NCSG has members in more than<br>
100 countries).<br>
<br>
<br>
*4) Deliverables. What arethe desired outcomes of your proposed<br>
activity?*<br>
Raised awareness about cybersecurity issues related to DNS and their<br>
policy implications; increased engagement in security work; report feeding<br>
into ICANN processes as well as other cybersecurity discussions.<br>
<br>
<br>
*5) Metrics. What measurements will you use to determine whether your<br>
activity achieves its desired outcomes?*<br>
Attendance, both onsite and online; increased participation<br>
on related working groups in ICANN and elsewhere; outcome document<br>
(report) that's useful as input to other fora like IGF Cybersecurity Best<br>
Practices forum.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Igf-team mailing list<br>
Igf-team@lists.ncsg.is<br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team" style="color:#BBB">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto">_______________________________________________</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto">Igf-team mailing list<br>
Igf-team@lists.ncsg.is<br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team" style="color:#BBB">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
***********************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow & Lecturer<br>
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br>
University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
william.drake@uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com (lists),<br>
www.williamdrake.org<br>
************************************************<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Igf-team mailing list<br>
Igf-team@lists.ncsg.is<br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team" style="color:#BBB">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________</p>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p dir="auto">Igf-team mailing list<br>
Igf-team@lists.ncsg.is<br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team" style="color:#999">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team</a><br>
</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto">-- <br>
<br>
Lucas de Moura</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div style="white-space:normal">
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>