INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic
Judith Hellerstein
judith at JHELLERSTEIN.COM
Mon Aug 5 11:13:06 EEST 2024
HI All,
I have heard that there are talks about combining the At Large and the CCNSO's
proposals, so this still might happen. Will let all know what I hear as this
could change people's votes
The current WSIS20 mailing list that ICANN set up is very helpful and encourage
everyone to join. ICANN has been putting on calls and sessions for this and
will continue to do so. It is why I think we might want to select another
session than the CCNSO session. I think the geopolitics and the infrastructure
issues discussed in the At Large session will make for a very interesting
session. But I am in support of a merged session with CCNSO if that can be
worked out.
Best,
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________
Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
Hellerstein & Associates
3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
E-mail:Judith at jhellerstein.com Website:www.jhellerstein.com
Linked In:www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 8/5/24 5:55 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> 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. /
>>
>> **
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240805/853e8d43/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list