INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic

[Johan Helsingius]

Just a reminder - I will have to give the NCSG vote on
Thursday, so your input is very much welcome.

	Julf


On 01/08/2024 16:36, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> Opinions welcome.
> 
> 	Julf
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Re: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81
> Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
> Date: 	Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:02:44 +0000
> From: 	Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning
> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
> Reply-To: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> To: 	soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Thank you to those who provided input!
> 
> You will be shortly be receiving calendar invitations for a second
> Production Call next week.
> 
> In order to ensure the Production Call closes on an agreement on the
> topic for the Community Session, please find below the proposed agenda
> and relevant action items to prepare for the call.
> 
> *Agenda*
> 
>    1. Q&A on Community Topic proposals
>    2. Vote via hands raised in Zoom (please note if unable to attend, it
>       will be possible to vote via the mailing list as suggested in my
>       previous email).
> 
> *Action Items for all:*
> 
>     * Kindly socialize the below topics to your community members as soon
>       as possible encouraging them to submit feedback in the form of
>       comments or questions.
>     * Please circulate the comments and questions ahead of time on the
>       planning mailing list in order for the Q&A to be as efficient as
>       possible.
> Looking forward to hearing from you all on the this thread as well as on
> the call next week!
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Nathalie
> 
> **
> 
>    1. *ccNSO Proposal*
> 
> The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81 meeting
> to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the WSIS+20
> Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation) can do to
> help advertise and preserve ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, and the
> broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach, during the Review.
> 
> ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in the
> GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the role
> ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in 2024 and
> 2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should be well
> developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN community
> around the role it can play in this important work.
> 
> The main outcomes of such a session should be that:
> 
>     * The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic approach to
>       the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual organisations and
>       communities can play
>     * The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can play as
>       part of the Review
> 
> A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about where
> the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the Geopolitical
> session.
> 
>    2. *IPC Proposal*
> 
> _Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN’s Accountability Mechanisms
> 
> _Aim:_  To hold a general discussion across the community about the
> ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for
> Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order to
> elicit views on whether:
> 
>     * these mechanisms are fit for purpose
>     * there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in which
>       these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws.  For example:
>         o do the standing and grounds requirements for either mechanism
>           serve to exclude legitimate access by those that the community
>           intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs
>         o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of complainant who
>           were not intended by the community to have access to them
>         o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous.
>     * there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential
>       revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether there
>       is a sufficient support from the community to convene a CCWG to work
>       on this.
> 
> _Brief Background:_
> 
> On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the GNSO
> Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the IRP, as
> presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential claimant who
> were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an
> unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process.  Board
> Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion on this.
> 
> At the same time, the GNSO’s Intellectual Property Constituency recently
> brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have had the
> effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the
> Bylaws-mandated process for doing so.  The IPC’s RFR was summarily
> dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed by such a
> Board action.
> 
> The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC’s
> ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in the
> Co-Operative Engagement Process.  Rather, we believe that both examples
> demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org’s side and on the
> Community side, with these important accountability mechanisms which
> were revised as a result of the cross community work on Accountability
> in the context of the IANA Transition.  We believe this is an
> appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms meet the
> community’s expectations, or whether they would benefit from a more
> formal review and revision.
> 
> **
> 
> *3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal*
> 
> 
> _Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism, Geopolitics,
> International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.
> 
> _Objective/Aims_:
> To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and
> emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping of
> the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet
> infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference the
> 2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy,
> EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2. This session is crucial for end users,
> regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts, academics, and
> other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It emphasizes
> the link between infrastructure governance and data management from the
> end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric
> approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures.
> 
> _Proposed Speakers_:
> 
>     - Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer
>     - Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member
>     - Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team at
> the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland
>     - Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum
>     - Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of
> Commerce, NTIA
>     - Berna Akçalı Gür, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of London,
> Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster
>     - John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer
> 
> _Moderator:_ Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC
> 
> _Scoping Questions_:
> 
>    1.   How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate new
>       internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in governance?
>    2.   What are the primary governance challenges posed by the
>       development of new internet infrastructures and governance models?
>    3.   How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act, and
>       NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by new
>       internet infrastructures and respective governance models?
> 
> 
> _Expected Outcomes_:
> 
> 
> - A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities
> presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift
> towards them - MSM implications.
> - Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the MSM,
> can adapt to these emerging technologies.
> - Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of multistakeholder
> Internet governance.
> 
>    4. *RrSG Proposal*
> 
> **
> 
> RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant’s Journey
> 
> Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her Registrant
> Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration and use of her
> new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s TV show
> /Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she’ll encounter choices for registration
> data submission and publication, phishing emails and deceptive notices,
> and renewal reminders. She’ll consider moving to a new registrar, or
> even giving the domain name away to a friend, and more. Will Sophia’s
> journey be a success? We’ll poll the meeting attendees to help her
> decide what to do at each important step in the process.
> 
> /This session takes attendees through important aspects of the domain
> name lifecycle, covering registration data collection requirements,
> choices around data masking or publication, contacts sent to the domain
> owner, and processes including registrar transfer and change of
> ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater understanding of the
> industry landscape and domain owner experience. /
> 
> **