INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic

[Johan Helsingius]

Thanks Judith, very good points, but it might be good (just to
avoid any discussion) to declare that you might have a conflict
of interest in ALAC-related issues.

	Julf


On 05/08/2024 18:13, Judith Hellerstein wrote:
> 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. /
>>>
>>> **