<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Tx you for sharing these notes, Maria.
For those of us who could not attend, they are very interesting
and valuable.<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC7qwdDib5ffSC8h3DLkOmJ3QCX_Bx_7kmy9yneQ7z8FAMSWdg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>