[NCSG-Discuss] A few points from today's NCSG Open Policy Meeting

Wed Mar 20 03:48:28 CET 2013

Don't know how many of you guys have ever stumbled upon this map:

<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/governingbynetworks.pdf>

In 2005 or about  I thought it was unlocking the secrets to the 
universe, but those are obviously the sole province of the Hichhicker's 
Guide.

I agree with your assessment about the map down at icann.org

Nicolas

On 3/19/2013 11:45 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Nicolas
>
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM 
> <mailto:nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>> Which front page?
>
> ICANN's
>>
>> Is it the one from "tangente university" or something like that? 
>> Sorry to still be missing it.
>
> Scroll down icann.org <http://icann.org>
>
> Cheers
>
> BD
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> On 13/03/2013 6:16 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> One thing I'd be eager to express a group view on is that abysmal 
>>> map of the Internet governance ecosystem Fadi's put on the front 
>>> page.  I told him I thought it lame and he was genuinely taken 
>>> aback, he's been persuaded it unlocks the secrets of the universe…
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Robin, good notes, one addendum since you didn't have a 
>>>> access to the Adobe: there was a small bit of discussion about the 
>>>> one-page "cheat sheets" we agreed in LA to produce summarizing our 
>>>> positions on key issues for Fadi and his team, so they have some 
>>>> organized and accessible idea where we're coming from on a range of 
>>>> issues.  There was some back and forth about just how we would do 
>>>> this and then the discussion got side tracked, but I think the most 
>>>> popular view was that it should be done at the SG level and 
>>>> coordinated through the PC 
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Policy+Issue+Summaries. 
>>>>   From my perspective anyway, one would think this should be 
>>>> antecedent to and more important than some of the other items 
>>>> mentioned yesterday.  Yes we could try to help others and broader 
>>>> processes by focusing the RAA discussion, supporting EWG, helping 
>>>> to define "public interest" for ICANN and all the rest, but 
>>>> shouldn't we first concentrate on getting out our own statements 
>>>> about our own views as a community, lay down some markers, make it 
>>>> less easy for ICANN leadership and staff to characterize community 
>>>> sentiments on a given issue in ways that ignore our views, etc.
>>>>
>>>> We have three and half weeks until Beijing.  Shouldn't we be able 
>>>> to pull together teams to do concise and spiffy statements on say 6 
>>>> topics, e.g. maybe a couple cross-cutting institutional 
>>>> (transparency, inclusion in the new extra-meeting meetings, 
>>>> outreach, policy/implementation) and a couple substantive policy 
>>>> (RAA, registrant right,s INGO, WHOIS, closed generics—both sides—etc).
>>>>
>>>> If there's sufficient juice to do this, I'd volunteer to help with 
>>>> the institutional bits, as these synch better with the UC EC work 
>>>> underway...
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 13, 2013, at 2:51 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org 
>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A few notes in advance of receiving the transcript and recording 
>>>>> from today's NCSG Open Policy Meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposal to organize a couple briefing sessions with ICANN staff 
>>>>> and Registrar negotiators regarding the recent debacle over the 
>>>>> Registrar Agreement Amendment (RAA) and ICANN unilateralism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposal to organize a briefing session with privacy-concerned 
>>>>> members of the WHOIS Expert Working Group about how NCSG can 
>>>>> contribute to the EWG discussions and possible outcomes of EWG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposal that NCSG help define "public interest" discussion at 
>>>>> ICANN by preparing a list of criteria to consider in the 
>>>>> evaluation (Wendy holds drafting pen - looking for input).
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is the list of discussion topics suggested by NCSG members 
>>>>> for NCSG GNSO Representatives to propose at Thursday's GNSO 
>>>>> Council Meeting on the topic of Beijing planning.
>>>>>
>>>>> GNSO & Board Discussion:
>>>>> 1.  Bottom-up multi-stakeholderism v. ICANN unilateralism
>>>>> 2.  Definition of "public interest" at ICANN
>>>>> 3.  ICANN engagement & outreach plans
>>>>> 4.  New constituencies
>>>>>
>>>>> GNSO & GAC Discussion:
>>>>> 1.  Policy vs. Implementation - Roles of GAC & GNSO
>>>>> 2.  Definition of "public interest" at ICANN
>>>>>
>>>>> CCnso & GNSO Discussion:
>>>>> 1.  Rights & Responsibilities document in relation to RAA
>>>>> 2.  ICANN engagement & outreach plans
>>>>> 3.  Regulation of CCtlds that look like Gtlds
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize if I've mischaracterized anyone's suggested topic 
>>>>> above.  Please correct me.  And also if there are other 
>>>>> suggestions to add to this list, please do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP JUSTICE
>>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org <http://www.ipjustice.org/>    e: 
>>>>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130319/35eb1eac/attachment-0001.html>