<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi everyone,</div><div><br></div><div>Seeing the messages in the other mail chain about this same subject, I would like to highlight that I currently work for a ccTLD. My involvement in ICANN and in the NCSG precedes this job and I do not represent NIC.br in ICANN work, but even then this could represent some level of conflict of interest.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cordially,<br></div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><b>Pedro de Perdigão Lana</b><br></font></font></span><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://www.nic.br/" target="_blank">Lawyer</a>, </font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://www.gedai.com.br/" target="_blank">GEDAI/UFPR</a> Researcher</font></font></span></font></font></span></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2">PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)</font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"> </font></font></span></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"></span></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2">Board Member @ </font></font></span><span style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><font size="2"><a href="https://www.ncuc.org/" target="_blank">NCUC (ICANN)</a>,</font><font size="1"><font size="2"> </font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://isoc.org.br/" target="_blank">ISOC BR</a></font></font></span>, </font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://br.creativecommons.net/" target="_blank">CC Brasil</a></font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1"><font size="2"> and <a href="https://ioda.org.br/" target="_blank">IODA</a></font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"></span></div><div><font size="1"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif">This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by mistake, please reply informing it.</span></font></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Em sáb., 3 de ago. de 2024 às 05:16, Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:julf@julf.com">julf@julf.com</a>> escreveu:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Pedro - good comments. I can try to suggest some sort of merger of<br>
1 and 3, but not sure what is possible at this point.<br>
<br>
Julf<br>
<br>
<br>
On 01/08/2024 14:36, Pedro de Perdigão Lana wrote:<br>
> Hi everyone,<br>
> <br>
> Would it be possible to merge proposals 1 and 3? ALAC's proposal <br>
> apparently overlaps quite a bit with the "Geopolitical, Legislative, and <br>
> Regulatory Developments Update", and ccNSO's seems a bit repetitive, <br>
> even if the idea is exactly to consolidate what is being built during <br>
> the year. Maybe joining those (something along the lines of "ICANN's <br>
> role towards new Internet Infrastructures being proposed nationally and <br>
> internationally") would result in a very interesting session.<br>
> <br>
> IPC's proposal is too specific, aiming to bring a concern of their <br>
> constituency to be debated by the whole community, and RrSG is too wide <br>
> (it looks more like a proposal for an outreach video than a Community <br>
> Session)<br>
> <br>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*<br>
> Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <<a href="https://www.nic.br/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.nic.br/</a>>, Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR <br>
> <<a href="https://www.gedai.com.br/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.gedai.com.br/</a>>)<br>
> Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),<br>
> Membro da Coordenação - NCUC (ICANN) <<a href="https://www.ncuc.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ncuc.org/</a>>, ISOC BR <br>
> <<a href="https://isoc.org.br/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://isoc.org.br/</a>>, IODA <<a href="https://ioda.org.br/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ioda.org.br/</a>> e CC Brasil <br>
> <<a href="https://br.creativecommons.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://br.creativecommons.net/</a>>.<br>
> Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por <br>
> engano, favor responder informando o erro.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Em qua., 31 de jul. de 2024 às 09:28, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <br>
> <<a href="mailto:ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is</a>>> escreveu:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------<br>
> Subject: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT<br>
> NEEDED<br>
> ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024<br>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:51:07 +0000<br>
> From: Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning<br>
> <<a href="mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org</a>>><br>
> Reply-To: Nathalie Peregrine <<a href="mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org" target="_blank">nathalie.peregrine@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org" target="_blank">nathalie.peregrine@icann.org</a>>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org</a>><br>
> <<a href="mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org" target="_blank">soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning@icann.org</a>>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> **With additional RrSG topic added, and extended deadline 7^th August<br>
> 20:00 UTC, thank you to Alejandra and Justine for the suggestion!**<br>
> <br>
> Dear all,<br>
> <br>
> The deadline for topic suggestions regarding the ICANN81 Community<br>
> Session has now passed. You may have seen three proposals circulated on<br>
> this mailing list. I have posted them below in order of submission.<br>
> <br>
> In order to finalize the choice of topic, we would like to invite ICANN<br>
> community leaders to submit their choices via the mailing list by<br>
> responding to these two questions:<br>
> <br>
> 1. Which topic is your group most interested in? /(Please bear in<br>
> mind<br>
> that “none” is also an acceptable response)/<br>
> 2. Would this topic engage your group to the point of taking part in<br>
> the organization of the session?<br>
> <br>
> Kindly respond by _Wednesday 7 August 2024 2000 UTC._<br>
> <br>
> __<br>
> <br>
> Thank you all!<br>
> <br>
> **<br>
> <br>
> 1. *ccNSO Proposal*<br>
> <br>
> The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81<br>
> meeting<br>
> to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the WSIS+20<br>
> Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation) can do to<br>
> help advertise and preserve ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, and the<br>
> broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach, during the<br>
> Review.<br>
> <br>
> ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in<br>
> the<br>
> GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the role<br>
> ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in 2024 and<br>
> 2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should be well<br>
> developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN community<br>
> around the role it can play in this important work.<br>
> <br>
> The main outcomes of such a session should be that:<br>
> <br>
> * The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic<br>
> approach to<br>
> the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual organisations and<br>
> communities can play<br>
> * The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can<br>
> play as<br>
> part of the Review<br>
> <br>
> A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about where<br>
> the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the<br>
> Geopolitical<br>
> session.<br>
> <br>
> 2. *IPC Proposal*<br>
> <br>
> _Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN’s Accountability Mechanisms<br>
> <br>
> _Aim:_ To hold a general discussion across the community about the<br>
> ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for<br>
> Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order to<br>
> elicit views on whether:<br>
> <br>
> * these mechanisms are fit for purpose<br>
> * there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in which<br>
> these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws. For example:<br>
> o do the standing and grounds requirements for either mechanism<br>
> serve to exclude legitimate access by those that the community<br>
> intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs<br>
> o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of<br>
> complainant who<br>
> were not intended by the community to have access to them<br>
> o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous.<br>
> * there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential<br>
> revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether<br>
> there<br>
> is a sufficient support from the community to convene a CCWG<br>
> to work<br>
> on this.<br>
> <br>
> _Brief Background:_<br>
> <br>
> On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the GNSO<br>
> Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the IRP, as<br>
> presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential claimant who<br>
> were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an<br>
> unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process. Board<br>
> Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion on this.<br>
> <br>
> At the same time, the GNSO’s Intellectual Property Constituency<br>
> recently<br>
> brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have had the<br>
> effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the<br>
> Bylaws-mandated process for doing so. The IPC’s RFR was summarily<br>
> dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed by such a<br>
> Board action.<br>
> <br>
> The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC’s<br>
> ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in the<br>
> Co-Operative Engagement Process. Rather, we believe that both examples<br>
> demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org’s side and on<br>
> the<br>
> Community side, with these important accountability mechanisms which<br>
> were revised as a result of the cross community work on Accountability<br>
> in the context of the IANA Transition. We believe this is an<br>
> appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms meet the<br>
> community’s expectations, or whether they would benefit from a more<br>
> formal review and revision.<br>
> <br>
> **<br>
> <br>
> *3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal*<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism, Geopolitics,<br>
> International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.<br>
> <br>
> _Objective/Aims_:<br>
> To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and<br>
> emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping of<br>
> the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet<br>
> infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference the<br>
> 2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy,<br>
> EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2. This session is crucial for end users,<br>
> regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts, academics, and<br>
> other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It emphasizes<br>
> the link between infrastructure governance and data management from the<br>
> end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric<br>
> approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures.<br>
> <br>
> _Proposed Speakers_:<br>
> <br>
> - Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer<br>
> - Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member<br>
> - Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team at<br>
> the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland<br>
> - Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum<br>
> - Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of<br>
> Commerce, NTIA<br>
> - Berna Akçalı Gür, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of London,<br>
> Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster<br>
> - John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer<br>
> <br>
> _Moderator:_ Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC<br>
> <br>
> _Scoping Questions_:<br>
> <br>
> 1. How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate new<br>
> internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in governance?<br>
> 2. What are the primary governance challenges posed by the<br>
> development of new internet infrastructures and governance models?<br>
> 3. How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act, and<br>
> NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by new<br>
> internet infrastructures and respective governance models?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _Expected Outcomes_:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> - A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities<br>
> presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift<br>
> towards them - MSM implications.<br>
> - Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the MSM,<br>
> can adapt to these emerging technologies.<br>
> - Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of<br>
> multistakeholder<br>
> Internet governance.<br>
> <br>
> 4. *RrSG Proposal*<br>
> <br>
> **<br>
> <br>
> RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant’s Journey<br>
> <br>
> Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her Registrant<br>
> Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration and use of<br>
> her<br>
> new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s TV show<br>
> /Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she’ll encounter choices for<br>
> registration<br>
> data submission and publication, phishing emails and deceptive notices,<br>
> and renewal reminders. She’ll consider moving to a new registrar, or<br>
> even giving the domain name away to a friend, and more. Will Sophia’s<br>
> journey be a success? We’ll poll the meeting attendees to help her<br>
> decide what to do at each important step in the process.<br>
> <br>
> /This session takes attendees through important aspects of the domain<br>
> name lifecycle, covering registration data collection requirements,<br>
> choices around data masking or publication, contacts sent to the domain<br>
> owner, and processes including registrar transfer and change of<br>
> ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater understanding of the<br>
> industry landscape and domain owner experience. /<br>
> <br>
> **<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NCSG-EC mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec</a><br>
> <<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec</a>><br>
> <br>
</blockquote></div>