[governance] .xxx. igc and igf

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Wed Apr 11 12:45:23 EDT 2007 

(I've cut the cc list.  Just the list)

At 11:46 AM -0400 4/11/07, Lee McKnight wrote:
>Agreed, a workshop or really a workshop and a plenary discussion on
>ICANN Evolution at IGF II is  needed.


Good idea.

My guess is that ICANN evolution would be considered too narrow an 
issue for a main session.  And may not be popular with some as it 
would likely be seen as closely linked to enhanced cooperation (see 
the transcripts of the February stocktaking meeting for ducking that 
went on when enhanced cooperation was mentioned.)  But I tend to be 
unadventurous in what I think possible (wishy-washy), so go for it. 
Write up a proposal.

I think (hope) there will be a session discussing Internet resources 
(allocation, management, policies.)  And as one of the suggestions we 
made in February, and also requested by others, was for workshops to 
be more tightly linked to the main sessions then discussing ICANN 
broadly in the main session and going deeper in a workshop or 
workshops should work.

Of course we should also (I hope) be suggesting that the same open 
call for workshop proposals be repeated, it worked last year. Some of 
the most popular workshops we on topics not covered by the main theme 
(root servers, etc.)

Proposing sessions and workshops that build on discussions in Athens, 
again so we can go deeper, may also be popular.  Can this ICANN 
evolution idea be linked to outcomes of workshops IGP put on last 
year. And what was the outcome of the workshop on the framework 
convention?



>Doesn't directly affect the continual internal reorgs ICANN is going
>through, as it should, nor obviate the need for broader participation
>within iCANN whihc  Vittorio is reasonably calling for, but provides a
>second still broader venue for this debate - and maybe -
>recommendations.
>
>And, now that IGF I proved itself to be a useful place for broader
>dialogue, I suspect any a priori constraints on topics IGF II is 'free'
>to discuss are gone.


As I said, I hope not.  There was a pretty consistent message in the 
stock taking exercise for more coordination of workshops (ensure 
multistakeholder, etc, but link to the main themes, more focused, no 
overlapping issues, merge similar proposals.  And IGC even suggested 
the amount of time that should be devoted to discussion -- I thought 
a bit controlling myself...)  But at the same time, people we pretty 
consistent in saying the advisory group shouldn't insert itself too 
much (bit of tension between not taking decisions on themes and then 
being asked to get into more detail on workshops?)  Many thought the 
number of workshops about right, but a similar number seemed to think 
there was too much going on at the same time so it was hard to follow.

I hope the will be the same amount of freedom, but more coordination. 
Generally tighter agenda.  But we are again running short of time to 
arrange a large international conference.  Which is why suggestions 
like this on themes are important.

Adam




>Lee
>
>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>+1-315-443-6891office
>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>>  jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4/11/2007 9:36 AM >>>
>Yes, this was brought up at that meeting and the idea was discussed
>further
>in informal gatherings. All so far thought it was a great idea and
>should be
>pursued. The only concern was whether it should be informal or formal
>on the
>schedule. I'd prefer that it be formally scheduled, but an informal
>format
>(being scheduled will allow for it to be advertised and promoted so
>that
>people know about it and can come, and to have interpretation and
>webcasting
>facilities if we want that)
>Jacqueline
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:25 PM
>To: Vittorio Bertola; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br
>Cc: Parminder
>Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
>
>
>
>Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which
>>ICANN would take directions from the IGF.
>
>"Take direction," no, but ICANN will respond to political pressures
>from any source. And why not use IGF to stimulate awareness of ICANN
>and
>its issues, if there are civil society people who go to it and not
>ICANN meetings?
>
>>  At the last ICANN meeting,
>>  between known faces scattered in corridors, there
>>were talks of a fixed civil society meeting on the
>>  last day of every ICANN meeting - that
>>  might be a good point to start, for example.
>
>There was also such talk at the joint NCUC-ALAC meeting. Carlos and I
>have been promoting this idea for a couple of years now.
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date:
>4/9/2007
>10:59 PM
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date:
>4/9/2007
>10:59 PM
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list