[NCUC-DISCUSS] Hot topic session in BA

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi Bill,
 
thx for moving foreward. 100 % on your page. Good approach. Two comments.
 
@ 1: we should discuss both process and substance. My understanding from the Bali discussion is that a. we have a procedural problem (how it is possible to organize an open and transparent bottom up preparatory process which includes all stakeholders on equal footing) and b. we have to discuss what our input could be into the substance which will include probably three issues i. principles, ii. institutional frameworks and iii. decision making procedures.
 
@ 2: The strategy panels remains a "mystery". Nothing is decided, no meetings have taken place, first steps will be discussed in BA but the final reports should be available end of January (that means the draft reports have to be ready around mid-January). Who will be able to produce meaningful results between the end of BA (November 24) and January 15 with X-mas and New Years eve in beteween? No clue!  
 
wolfgang

 
________________________________

Von: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Do 31.10.2013 08:43
An: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Betreff: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Hot topic session in BA


Hi  

There will be a session comprising 90 minutes of cross community discussion of two topics, and community members are asked to rank their preferences.


1.  Evolution of Internet Governance - Montevideo Statement and Post Bali Activities
2.  Names Collision Mitigation Risks
3.  Policy and Implementation
4.  Strategic Panels

Personally, my preference ordering would be 1, 4, 3, 2.

1 would tie in well as part of a chain of conversations, mobilization efforts, and cross-silo cooperation that could raise NCUC's profile and engagement internally and externally, e.g. BA => Bern IG conference in December => Possible Fadi CS roundtable January/Feb => NCUC policy conference in March => inputs to the Brazil IG reform event.

4 would provide a way into both the substantive issues the panels are assessing and the concerns expressed here previously on how such initiatives do or don't fit into the bottom up community-driven model etc.

3 is a hardy perennial that has been and will continually be raked over in and out of the the GNSO irrespective of this session.  That said, I know some people think it's the top priority that needs to be discussed whenever wherever.

2 is interesting and important but arguably not as time sensitive.

But that's just my view, and if discussion here provides a different "sense of the room" I'll report that to the planning group.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bill



**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/> 
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> 
***********************************************************

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss