[Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
Robert Guerra
rguerra at privaterra.org
Sun Apr 30 19:54:59 EEST 2017
(am resending this note I sent yesterday that bounced as I wasn’t
subscribed to the list..)
Bill,
As I mentioned on the google doc - I polled th ssac and heard back th
following:
* there's an interest and willingness to collaborate on this proposal .
Special ally, there's an interest to bring a Security , operations and
technical perspective (if that is of interest)
* ssac members available
I polled the ssac and At least 2 members got back to me who would be
happy to participate on the panel (in person or virtually)
- the two persons are -
1. Ben Butler from GoDaddy who likely would be able to speak to
RDS/Whois , domain hijacking and takedown
2. Jeff Bedser , who is more a cyber investigations expert who can speak
to law enforcement , takedown as well as cooperation that's needed when
doing investigations for ip takedowns and cybercrime
* if a DNS operations , DNSSEC or registry operations is also desired,
let me know and I'll teach out directly to others on the ssac who have,
in the past, participated such as Merike Kaeo
* ssac has contacts with law enforcement community . If that perspective
is desired and can be added , let me know to see if I can get the FBI
contact I mentioned earlier to confirm (who likely will attend anyway)
Let me know so I can follow-up accordingly
Regards
Robert
--
Robert Guerra
From: Martin Pablo Silva Valent
<mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>(mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com)
Date: April 29, 2017 at 12:27:48 PM
To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>(mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com)
CC: Kuerbis, Brenden N
<brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>(mailto:brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu),
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>(mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org),
igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
<igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>(mailto:igf-team at lists.ncsg.is), William Drake
<wjdrake at gmail.com>(mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com)
Subject: Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
> Agree 100% on with Bill, unless someone has something already cooked
> that we can go behind, let's reach out to those experts, and hope some
> others ncsg experts follow, thanks James !!! I am not an expert but I
> think the topic is something different, new and concrete compared to
> other panels and our usual work, worth for a try. So even if it is not
> my field I am more than willing to fully support and engage.
>
> If by the end of today we don't have any new opinions I say let's
> bring the experts we have in our contacts. I know there is a civil
> society cibersecurity approach to DNS!
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 29 Apr 2017 8:37 a.m., "Farell Folly"
> <farellfolly at gmail.com(mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com)> wrote:
>>
>> +1 Martin and William.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> about.me/farell(http://about.me/farell)
>> ________________________________.
>> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>>
>> Le 29 avr. 2017 07:45, "William Drake"
>> <wjdrake at gmail.com(mailto: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(mailto: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(mailto: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(http://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(mailto: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(mailto: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] 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
More information about the Igf-team
mailing list