ICANN 70 Plenary topics

[Bruna Martins dos Santos]

Dear Kathy and Dave,

Thanks a lot for your emails on the plenary session topics and feedback on
the topics.

They have indeed been selected, as informed back at our last policy
call. The winning submissions for ICANN70 were (a) Registry Voluntary
Commitments: Getting it Right and (b) Governmental Regulatory Developments
and Community Discussion. With regards to our participation on the
sessions, based on our members request I have tried to request a slot for
some level of community interaction for the regulatory one, but the format
of the session will be a presentation on the session followed by a
community Q&A session.

In light of your request about the Voluntary Commitment session, I will
reach out to Maureen and Zuck following up to this email, requesting the
possibility of NCSG being added as a speaker here and will get back to you
as soon as I hear from them  - for us to deliberate about a
representative.  Lastly, if our membership thinks its interesting, we could
host a short discussion about Technical Internet Governance at the NCSG
Open meeting, Id like to hear from you what you deem interesting as agenda
items for our ICANN70 meeting.

Best,
Bruna

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:53 AM David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:

> 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:
>
>
>
>    1. Registry Voluntary Commitments: Getting it Right
>    2. Applicant Support: What Does Success Look Like?
>    3. Governmental Regulatory Developments and Community Discussion
>    4. 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>
>
>
>

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210223/2b54b019/attachment.htm>