[Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG

Wed Apr 26 17:43:26 EEST 2017

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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <http://about.me/farell> 
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
> 
> Le 25 avr. 2017 15:53, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 <mailto:Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team>
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/igf-team/attachments/20170426/6eec3d13/attachment-0001.html>