[NCSG-EC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024

[Johan Helsingius]

-------- 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>
Reply-To: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
To: 	soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org 
<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. /

**