ICANN 70 Plenary topics

[David Cake]

I agree with Kathy that if Registry Voluntary Commitments means PICs, then I think it is a high priority topic for us to talk about. And I would really like to see us come out swinging, and take a strong stance in support of the board position that ICANN cannot enforce contract provisions that fall outside ICANNs remit (eg ICANN should not be enforcing content provisions), though I think ICANN can reasonably enforce voluntary contract provisions that are an increased commitment to areas inside remit (eg PICs that agree to higher than the minimum levels of security). This is historically a big NCUC issue, one that many of us have strong opinions on and think was badly mishandled in the first round, it sounds as if there is a real opportunity to not just fix it for the next round, but retrospectively fix some of the worst of the last round. 

While I’ve not been as involved as Kathy in these issues, I’d also be willing to speak on PICs, I think it would be good to produce internal material to share with NCSG so our group is aware of some of the complexities of this messy issue, and why it is considered such a policy failure by NCSG in particular. 

Like others, while Government Regulatory Developments is a big issue, I’m not sure about a plenary - it would not meaningfully be a community discussion, just watching the US and EU reps posturing. A lot of the discussion is quite legally dense too (as those of us on the EPDP are very aware). 

Applicant Support  - if there are people, and especially those in this group, with strong proposals for what went wrong and how to fix it, this might be worthwhile, but I unfortunately do not see this as that valuable if it is an exercise in procedural autopsy or determining KPIs for the next round without a real expectation that underlying issues will be addressed (which seems more or less the framing for this plenary). An important issue, one I’d love to see us more active on, but I’m lacking enthusiasm for the plenary proposal. Happy to be told I’m wrong by those (Rafik especially) who have been following this issue more closely. 

Technical Internet Governance - this is an interesting topic, as it touches many core ICANN principles, and if it really guides internal ICANN org division of responsibilities etc it could be a major change to the way ICANN works that the community needs to have input over. I think NCSG, as a group with limited conflict of interest on this, are a good choice to lead the session. I would particular like to see Milton Mueller intolved, and also Wendy Seltzer.

So my thoughts would be TIG and RVCs high priority, government regulation lower, Applicant support lowest. I’d like to find a more useful way to discuss Applicant Support than a plenary, though.

David 




> On 3 Feb 2021, at 4:44 am, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear NSCG,
> agr
> 
> Please find a final list of proposed topics for plenary sessions during ICANN70.
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see on the attached document, a total of four proposals were submitted under the following topics:
> 
>  
> 
> Registry Voluntary Commitments: Getting it Right
> Applicant Support: What Does Success Look Like?
> Governmental Regulatory Developments and Community Discussion
> Technical Internet Governance or technical aspects of Internet Governance
> As proposed by Sam on one of our threads I have submitted a suggestion about Technical Internet Governance and would love to hear your thoughts about which of these proposals should we support. 
> 
> best, 
> 
> -- 
> Bruna Martins dos Santos 
> 
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
> @boomartins
> <ICANN70-Plenary Topic Proposals.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210223/a8f90973/attachment.htm>