[NCUC-DISCUSS] Hot topic session in BA

[Edward Morris]

+1

I concur both with David's recommendations and his reasoning thereof.

Ed


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:56 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> I'd personally say 1, 3, 4, 2.
>
> Now that the very big risks are off the table (.corp, .name) the name
> collision issue is intellectual interesting to some of us (including me),
> but probably not an issue of huge concern to the general community unless
> you are in an effected new gTLD.
>
> It is true that Policy and Implementation is a perennial, but it will be a
> subject of some detailed discussion at the meeting. Whereas, apart from the
> last panel (which ties into topic 1 anyway) not sure what there will be to
> discuss about panels that have barely met yet by BA.
> Cheers
> David
>
> On 31 Oct 2013, at 3:43 pm, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
> 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
> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131031/21a7ebf6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss