[NCSG-EC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
Johan Helsingius
julf at Julf.com
Sat Aug 3 11:16:43 EEST 2024
Hi Pedro - good comments. I can try to suggest some sort of merger of
1 and 3, but not sure what is possible at this point.
Julf
On 01/08/2024 14:36, Pedro de Perdigão Lana wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Would it be possible to merge proposals 1 and 3? ALAC's proposal
> apparently overlaps quite a bit with the "Geopolitical, Legislative, and
> Regulatory Developments Update", and ccNSO's seems a bit repetitive,
> even if the idea is exactly to consolidate what is being built during
> the year. Maybe joining those (something along the lines of "ICANN's
> role towards new Internet Infrastructures being proposed nationally and
> internationally") would result in a very interesting session.
>
> IPC's proposal is too specific, aiming to bring a concern of their
> constituency to be debated by the whole community, and RrSG is too wide
> (it looks more like a proposal for an outreach video than a Community
> Session)
>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>, Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
> <https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
> Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
> Membro da Coordenação - NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR
> <https://isoc.org.br/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> e CC Brasil
> <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
> Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por
> engano, favor responder informando o erro.
>
>
> Em qua., 31 de jul. de 2024 às 09:28, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> escreveu:
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT
> NEEDED
> ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:51:07 +0000
> From: Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning
> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>
> Reply-To: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>
> To: soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>
>
>
>
> **With additional RrSG topic added, and extended deadline 7^th August
> 20:00 UTC, thank you to Alejandra and Justine for the suggestion!**
>
> Dear all,
>
> The deadline for topic suggestions regarding the ICANN81 Community
> Session has now passed. You may have seen three proposals circulated on
> this mailing list. I have posted them below in order of submission.
>
> In order to finalize the choice of topic, we would like to invite ICANN
> community leaders to submit their choices via the mailing list by
> responding to these two questions:
>
> 1. Which topic is your group most interested in? /(Please bear in
> mind
> that “none” is also an acceptable response)/
> 2. Would this topic engage your group to the point of taking part in
> the organization of the session?
>
> Kindly respond by _Wednesday 7 August 2024 2000 UTC._
>
> __
>
> Thank you all!
>
> **
>
> 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. /
>
> **
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
>
More information about the NCSG-EC
mailing list