[Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG

Sun Apr 30 22:00:48 EEST 2017

Hello,
 Totally agree with you, will add the material to the doc as soon as
possible.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 at 08:46 James Gannon <james at netgov.ch> wrote:

> Thanks all, discussion on the list is great but we need content into the
> google doc =)
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From:* Igf-team [mailto:igf-team-bounces at lists.ncsg.is] *On Behalf Of *Farell
> Folly
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 30, 2017 12:09 PM
> *To:* Lucas Moura <moura.lucas at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>; igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Igf-team] Global IGF 2017 - NCSG
>
>
>
> Good job Lucas
>
> Proposals 1, 2 and 5 sound good too me
>
> 1- because this a hot topic in ICANN  and the undergoing discussions in
> RDS PDP WG focus on the next gen. We have materials ready for that
>
> 2 and 5 because of their particular focus on users.
>
> Best Regards
> @__f_f__
> about.me/farell
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 30 avr. 2017 03:57, "Lucas Moura" <moura.lucas at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Hey everyone ,
>
> Related to DNS Security, below are some topics that I think that would be
> okay to cover in a IGF workshop. As long our time is running short, below
> are some ideas how to deal with the break a part moment of the workshop
>
> 1. Whois Privacy (proxy whois and the relationship with abuse of domains)
>
> 2. indentifier technology health indicator and how this affects the nom
> comercial users
>
> 3. How the Urds are affecting nom commercial users in the internet
> governance ecosystem
>
> 4. Ways to approach Security groups(like SSAC and RSSAC) in Icann to the
> groups like NCUC
>
> 5. How to build a better relationship between "user" community and the
> security community ( and how this relationship can become a win-win one)
>
> 6. How to enable groups like  Ralos to participate and contribute to the
> security of Dns industry
>
> 7. A hands on with the challenges of IDN and the newGTLD related to
> security and stability of DNS.
>
>  Before the break a part moment would be nice if we could explain in a
> nutshell the Dns security scenario and the role of groups like NCSG.
>
> Maybe use as example the participation of someone from the SSR2 review
> group to show some "channels" that already exists in this area.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 at 17:37 Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>
> 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>
> <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> Date: April 29, 2017 at 12:27:48 PM
> To: Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> <farellfolly at gmail.com>
> CC: Kuerbis, Brenden N <brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> <brenden.kuerbis at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, Robert Guerra
> <rguerra at privaterra.org> <rguerra at privaterra.org>, igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> <igf-team at lists.ncsg.is> <igf-team at lists.ncsg.is>, William Drake
> <wjdrake at gmail.com> <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> wrote:
>
> +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/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
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
> --
>
> Lucas de Moura
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igf-team mailing list
> Igf-team at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/igf-team
>
> --

Lucas de Moura
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/igf-team/attachments/20170430/7796904c/attachment-0001.html>