[NCSG-EC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
Pedro de Perdigão Lana
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com
Tue Aug 6 00:54:06 EEST 2024
Hi everyone,
Seeing the messages in the other mail chain about this same subject, I
would like to highlight that I currently work for a ccTLD. My involvement
in ICANN and in the NCSG precedes this job and I do not represent NIC.br in
ICANN work, but even then this could represent some level of conflict of
interest.
Cordially,
*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Board Member @ NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR
<https://isoc.org.br/>, CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/> and IODA
<https://ioda.org.br/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.
Em sáb., 3 de ago. de 2024 às 05:16, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
escreveu:
> 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>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20240805/60de94f4/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the NCSG-EC
mailing list