<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi all,<br><br>It just occurred to me that these very rough notes of last week's ICANN call on Internet governance might be of interest to ppl who weren't on the call. <br><br></div><div>The first part is my summarised notes of the discussion, pretty much just what Fadi said in response to questions. The second part is a cut and paste of the chatroom discussion. <br>
</div><div><br></div>The headline point for us is that Fadi is now emphatic that surveillance will NOT be on the Brazil agenda. <br><br></div>All the best, Maria<br><br>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal">Icann igf call 7 nov 2013</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fadi</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wctd next year and plenipot are intergovt, now we have igf
2014 in Istanbul (2015 brazil, 2016 mexico), and brazil conference. Date tba
after BA mtg. An ‘invitee’ conference led by<span style>
</span>a steering committee set up for the conference, committee to include CGI
and global multistakeholder community including icann, and other cs and
business. Conditional support by icann for conf till they see agenda etc.
Matching our community interests. Asked that it steer clear from specific
topics such as surveillance because it’s not relevant and we don’t have ‘any
specific connection’ to it. There will be a stment of principles for all
stakeholders to be comfortable subscribing to. V high level, like cgi ones or
oecd. Second thing conf will focus on will be how IG works, how to evolve and
globalise the existing insts, including i*s. And what new mechs cd be put in
place to address other topics (orphan issues) – emph mechanisms not insts. Goal
is not to create new insts. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve delbianco – what’s the evidence for there being more
multilateral moves this year?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fadi – lots. South korea supports funcitons moving to itu.
India pushing for similar. Seeing it from middle country govts in asia, Africa
and latin America makes us concerned. Proposals to regional meeting for cstd –
was Egypt, now e. Europe tba – surprised by suggestions to move issues from IT
activity into multilateral fora. We are concerned. Multistakeholder moves
pushed by usg, but usg is not in the same posn it was a year ago. We’re
concerned about its coalescing power at the moment. The forces right now that
favour a multilateral approach are getting stronger. Our ability to respond and
be ready has to be sharpened. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve – when korea says cybersecurity, how does that
implicate the dns?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fadi – we can hide in our little box and believe all of us
are not implicated when the broader ig preference pressure is moving another
way. That’s naive to be frank. All the leaders of these respectable orgs i*
agreed we cannot just hide behind our remits and not take resp for the
pressures that are the entire ig ecosystem of which we are a part. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith drazek – brazil mtg participants need invitation from
the govt?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fadi – don’t know, tba. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">FADI – it wd be worse for us if this conf wasn’t happening,
lking at calendar for nx yr, nothing multis till October in Istanbul. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">keith Fadi seems to be hinting that ICANN will seek
increasing independence from the US Government for the IANA function. The
continuance of the US Governments administrative oversight of the IANA function
seems more critical in the current environment, and ICANN, other stakeholders
including sensible Governments should perhaps be supporting the status quo,
rather than the potential unknown aspects of a hurried devolvement to ICANN? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fadi – we are not in a hurry. Need for more oversight is not
news. I’m lking at how that happens in a safe secure and calm way. On protocol
parameters, we perform a function defined by the ietf. There is clarity with
that function. Same cd be said about numbers with the nro – we’re performing
function on behalf of the nro, the policy comes from there. On names, that
comes from the cctld, ccnso as well as from the gnso and we wk in partnership
with the root operators to ensure that happens. So we have v clear lines of
legitimacy and authority that come from these multistakeholder grps that
provide us with this policy. That will be the case today and tomorrow. The
question is one of oversight and that needs to be revised as is contemplated.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Team is constantly on the road, forming this coalition as
fast as we can for all comms of IG to come together and part in common set of
principles and messages. We are committed and engaged and need you and everyone
who believes in the importance of this model to speak up and part with us as
loudly as possible in promoting this. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A lot has happened in last 8 weeks and that’s causing ppl
angst. We have to communicate more and more so everyone feels more and more
part of it and directing this together. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith Drazek: As referenced in the Montevideo statement,
what does "globalization of the IANA function" mean? How do you
envision such globalization taking place? Will the community have a role in
determining the nature of any such globalization?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The community has to frame what that will mean. They’ve
given me the mandate to start it. Much of what i was told in first year was
making icann more global more international. Chuck gomes from your own company
pushed on that in the first few weeks. Three parts; change the dna of icann and
its global operational posture from a us western centric entity to a truly
global one. That has moved miles and wil continue. Second, to think about
fundamental core agreements and legal positions of icann and how over time
icann will have less of a us corporate presence, an aoc not nec signed with one
govt but rather all stakeholders, these fundamental tenets that give us
legitimacy. We as a comm should reflect on them, this is not a staff bd actin
but comm one, calmly and without rush, but with firm commitment that icnn’s
posture will be a global posture. Third, is iana contract. Has an oversight
that needs to evolve from single govt oversight to global multist oversight. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Only the comm can determine how that (the iana function)
works. Period. We have not yet started that process. We just staed what’s been
stated for yrs which is that that function has always been a function that
needs to evolve into its own oversight provided by the multis community.
Together we need to understn what that means in a way that not only satisfies
our comm but ensure the funct is global transparent and accepted by global
comm. And we’re all on equal footing without one govt or company or org having
a unique role. It’s not going to happen with any urgency. This stabilises the
system. The leverage shd remain with the<span style>
</span>multistkohders. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Re. Q on isoc chapters. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is the biggest gift of bali that we have come together
and will be coalescing around a common set of things. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s most imp that what we do nx yr is not defensive. Yes we
must make sure internet stays an open and free resource for everyone’s good. We
must do this not by saying what doesn’t work but by offering pro active, global
positive approaches for what will work. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">CHAT</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AVRI Anyone listening in on the current WGEC consultations
will realize that many governments are working really hard on that ML goal.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve DelBianco: question: what evidence do we have that the
"shift" to multilateral was more pronounced this year than in any
prior year?<span style> </span>There has always been
pressure from governments (not from the public).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David Olive: Thank yu Steve</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David Olive: Steve D> Your question will be first in the
order</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">adam: Steve, certainly not slowed down since WCIT last
December.<span style> </span>Governments keeping up
pressure in the UN, particularly reacting to and using Snowden.<span style> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">adam: And as Avri says, strong efforts from govts in a
meeting of the working group on enhanced cooperation going on now in Geneva to
promote multilateral institutions</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">adam: <a href="http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx">http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Avri Doria: Steve, and while it is the same governments as
alwasy, they are certainly using the UNCSTD and the WG on Enhanced Cooperation
to make a strong push for ML mechanisms</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve DelBianco: @Adam and Avri: Do governments regard
the<span style> </span>GAC as a multilateral
institution?<span style> </span>If not, why not?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Drake: > And as Avri says, strong efforts from govts
in a meeting of the working group on enhanced cooperation going on now in
Geneva to promote multilateral institutions</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Drake: I think they are weak efforts</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Avri Doria: Steve, the do not.<span style> </span>At least those goverments don't as it does
not have oversight decsion making power.<span style>
</span>They do not recognize equal footing with the rest of us as being part of
ML.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Drake: Mexico?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">adam: yes, 2016.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Drake: two years in a row in the same region?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">adam: not considered same region. Or sub region</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Drake: ah right</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith Davidson: Steve, at the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary there
was encouragement that the ITU "instruct the GAC to take control of
ICANN" - until it was realised that an inter-governmental organisation
cannot instruct another inter-governmental organisation. So at least the GAC is
recognised as an IGO... </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Drake: The Steering Committee is not very
representative, especially of civil society</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">adam: (mexico and dependent on renewal of mandate, but very
helpful to having renewal happen)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Patrik Fältström: What status GAC has depends on who you
ask. Some countries do believe a proper composition is according to UN rules,
and they also call it "democratic" which implies that each country
have one voice (vote). Other countries do believe more in a consensus based
model (also between countries), object a UN model and want more a GAC like
model. A third group want something else with some special roles for some
parties.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Drake: The second item steps directly into the space
the UN Enhanced Cooperation process is struggling with simultaneously</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith Drazek: Did I hear correctly that attendees to the
Brazil meeting will require an invitation?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David Olive: THanks Keith You wil be # 2 in order for
question</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Avri Doria: Iran and KSA as well</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve DelBianco: @Fadi -- When S. Korea says Cybersecurity,
how does that implicate DNS?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hector Manoff: I would like to make a suggestion</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hector Manoff: My suggestion is directed to enhance the
participation of the individual coming from developing countries</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Patrik Fältström: What specifically do ICANN help with
regarding local IGF meetings in difficult areas (like local IGF meetings) and
how is ICANN in practice helping/working so that such local events can help
with over all IG issues described by ICANN during 2014? For example, if<span style> </span>a local IGF is before or after april meeting
might impact what "successful" agenda items should be.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David Olive: Tanks you Hector and Patrik , next in order for
teh question after Keith</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Avri Doria: This is one of those cases where if we don't
coorperate among all I* we will all lose collectively.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Patrik Fältström: Avri: I agree, but that is also why I
asked the question ;-)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">adam: what would ICANN like to see on the agenda of the
meeting -- I have ideas (of course :-)), and how do you see the process after
May.<span style> </span>This should not be a one off, but
the start of an ongoing program of work</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">keith Fadi seems to be hinting that ICANN will seek
increasing independence from the US Government for the IANA function. The
continuance of the US Governments administrative oversight of the IANA function
seems more critical in the current environment, and ICANN, other stakeholders
including sensible Governments should perhaps be supporting the status quo,
rather than the potential unknown aspects of a hurried devolvement to ICANN? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Patrik Fältström: Thanks, I think ICANN should publicise and
do much better outreach regarding what your plans are, what you do, and what
your tactics are. This as many individuals on this call actually already is
working with various IGF things. And as Avri and others say, coordination can
and must be better. I guess this message is for Theresa, and I am happy to talk
with you about it :-)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sam Lanfranco: There is a need for a broader and deeper
strategy of stakeholder awareness to build involvement.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Keith Drazek: As referenced in the Montevideo statement,
what does "globalization of the IANA function" mean? How do you
envision such globalization taking place? Will the community have a role in
determining the nature of any such globalization?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br></div>