[Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG

[Farell Folly]

+1 Martin and William.

Best Regards
@__f_f__
about.me/farell
________________________________.
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 29 avr. 2017 07:45, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hi
>
> So if time pressures and switching costs mean that NCSG wants to to stick
> with the blue skies idea of DNS security issues for its IGF proposal this
> year, we’re going to need some engagement from people who know these issues
> well.  James Gannon is here in the group and can certainly help a lot if he
> has the bandwidth, not sure who else feels close enough to the topic.
> Folks please speak up if you’re feel you’re in a position to help lead.
>
> I would also suggest we try to get some guidance from friendly folks we
> know who are subject experts on the issues.  Here’s some suggestions of
> people who could a) be speakers if they’re coming to Geneva and willing and
> b) either way could help craft a session description and agenda if they’re
> inclined:
>
> 1. Brenden Kuerbis from NCUC/SG (who I’m taking the liberty of Ccing
> without asking him first, sorry)
>
> From the SSAC https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ssac-
> biographies-2017-02-16-en
>
> 2. Robert Guerra (also on the Cc as he expressed interest in talking about
> security @ IGF in another convo)
> 3. Patrik Fältström (SSAC Chair)
> 4. Mark Seiden
> 5. Suzanne Woolf
> 6. Ram Mohan
> 7. Don Blumenthal
>
> If we could get these folks engaged we’d have good guidance and (if
> they’re coming and willing) the start of a good panel, with private
> sector/technical community/civil society.  It would need geo/gender balance
> as well.
>
> If people agree with this approach we could write to them and try to get
> something going.  Choice of format would depend how many bodies we have etc.
>
> In the meanwhile, Brenden and Robert, your thoughts please.  Martin’s
> place holder description would obviously need to be built out and specified
> in keeping with the IGF proposal form which asks for agenda and description
> of the convo flow etc:
>
> *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.*
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 19:27, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at GMAIL.COM <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> Because of time we cannot go into detail on each subject, I would suggest
> to choose one and just work with it. We may not all be experts but we
> should be able to bring them. We can change it to other besides Security as
> long as you have already something sort out.  To save time I suggest we use
> all the same setting we used last year that was successful. If we can agree
> on the subject, the more time consuming and difficult will be to get the
> speakers, although her ewe might need Bill guidance, I think we can change
> this a little bit later in order to submit it on time. If you already have
> a subject to do that we can write down and work around this is your time to
> talk. All ideas are welcomed, have always been.
>
> Here I summarize the question we need to answer so you can just answer
> this email instead of going to the doc, I will then consolidate things on
> the doc.
>
> *1) ¿Session Format?**
> We can go for the 60 Min Break-out Group Discussions, we can also go for
> the 90 minutes it really depends on what we have to do. We could use the
> same format that we used last year here.
>
> *2) Session Format Description: *
> The easiest way it to have multi-stakeholder balanced roundtable with the
> basic subjects of the agenda and open the floor for in-site/remote
> participation. Again, if anyone have in mind an already thought idea for
> this just bring it in.
>
> *3) Proposer and co-proposer: *
> NCSG chair, Tapani and who ever is co-hosting the workshop, if we are
> going for cybersecurity then it should be someone with an organization
> regarding that.
>
> *4) Speakers*
> *Depending on the subject. If you have names for the cybersecurity let’s
> start listing that, we can maybe find that co-host there if it is not
> already in this list.*
>
>
> *5) Content of the Session * (we outlined ciber security, but you can use
> this space if you have an alternative)5.1) outline for the session*
> A workshop in Internet Governance Forum on cybersecurity and DNS.
> *5.2) description of the intended agenda for the session and the issues
> that will be discussed.*
> 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.
>
> *6) Relevance of the Issue **
> Please provide a concise description of the Internet Governance issue that
> your session will explore, including how this issue relates to Internet
> governance broadly, as well as to the main theme of IGF 2017: “Shape Your
> Digital Future!” In other words, please tell us why this workshop is
> important to include in the IGF programme.
>
>
> *7) Interventions *Same model as last year
>
> *8) Diversity*
>
> *9) Here we need people that are going to be in the IGF already:*
>
>
> *9.1) Onsite Moderator 9.2) Online Moderator 9.3) Rapporteur*
>
>
> *10) Online Participation * Yes, we will have remote acces and moderators
> to que any on-line participation into the room.*
>
> *11) Discussion facilitation *We can use the same model as last year
>
>
> *Past IGF Participation*
> *History in IGF : *How many other workshop has the NCSG and Co-organziers
> have? Report Links
>
>
>
> *VOLUNTARY INFORMATION / RESOURCES FOR PROPOSERS*
> XVIII. Sustainable Development Goals
>
> If your workshop proposal is based upon one or more of the UN Sustainable
> Development Goals, please indicate which numbers here. Note that this
> information is voluntary and collected for programming purposes only; this
> item has no bearing on the MAG’s evaluation of your workshop proposal.
>
> XIX. Connecting with IGF Intersessional Groups & NRIs
>
> If you would like to incorporate content/speakers related to the IGF’s
> intersessional work or the National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) into
> your workshop, please indicate which of the following would be of interest.
> To the extent possible, the MAG/IGF Secretariat will provide contacts for
> your outreach to pertinent points of contact.
>
> Best Practice Forums
>
> Information
>
> Dynamic Coalitions
>
> Information
>
> National and Regional Initiatives
>
> Information
>
> XX. Connecting with International or Other Relevant Organizations
>
> If you are interested in involving in your workshop any of the numerous
> organizations or subject matter experts based in Geneva (UN Agencies, NGOs,
> academia, think tanks, etc.), please indicate your interest above. Please
> find a selection of such organizations at: http://dig.watch/igf2017 For
> comprehensive information on “International Geneva” please consult:
> http://www.genIGF <http://www.genigf/>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 4:42 AM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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/i
>>> gf-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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170429/c1b126e2/attachment-0001.html>