[Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG

Fri Apr 28 10:42:27 EEST 2017

Dear All,

So what do we decide? Regarding the short deadline, we should take a
decision  today  whether we do the initial proposal or not (and quickly
vote for another, if not).

Best Regards
@__f_f__
about.me/farell
________________________________.
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 26 avr. 2017 2:43 PM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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>:
>
>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Farell
>> Folly
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:56 AM
>> *To:* William Drake
>> *Cc:* 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
>> ________________________________.
>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>
>> Le 25 avr. 2017 15:53, "William Drake" <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 <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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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_yXNgtMD
>> ONb8tf4GMYMdmCIdcBIN6XOQSwo0/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
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/igf-team/attachments/20170428/deff6c2b/attachment-0001.html>