-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Human Rights considerations at ICANN is by far the most important one
for me. After that 6 and 9.

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 09/12/2014 07:53 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> My preferences go for 1, 9, 11
> 
> Stefania
> 
> 
> - ________________________________ Da: NCSG-Discuss
> <[log in to unmask]> per conto di Milton L Mueller
> <[log in to unmask]> Inviato: venerdì 12 settembre 2014 19.50 A:
> [log in to unmask] Oggetto: Re: Preparation for ICANN LA
> meeting starting / LA HIGH-INTEREST TOPIC SESSION
> 
> I’d go for 4, 6 and 11
> 
> Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse
> University School of Information Studies 
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> 
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Mamadou LO Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:49 AM To:
> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss]
> Preparation for ICANN LA meeting starting / LA HIGH-INTEREST TOPIC
> SESSION
> 
> Hi Rafik!! All topics worth discussing; however, I'll go for 1; 8;
> 9
> 
> Mamadou ________________________________ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014
> 09:41:43 +0400 From:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> 
Subject: Re: Preparation for ICANN LA meeting starting / LA
HIGH-INTEREST TOPIC SESSION
> To:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> 
Hi Rafik,
> Humm, all these discussions are worthy indeed. I will go for 1, 9
> and 11. Best,
> 
> Patricia
> 
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: 
> Hello Rafik, All the topics are attractive. I will go for 1, 8,12 
> Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. 
> On 10 Sep 2014 15:02, "Rafik Dammak"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hi
> everyone,
> 
> as you may know already, there were several topic proposed for the
> high-interest topic session which should be held on the monday of
> ICANN meeting in LA. there is list below of several topics and we
> should select top 3 among them . please share you thoughts and
> choose 3 topics that should be discussed in that session. we need
> to get our list by next monday so I can sent it Tuesday.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date:
> 2014-09-10 16:01 GMT+09:00 Subject: LA HIGH-INTEREST TOPIC SESSION 
> To:
> 
> Dear Community Leaders:
> 
> Thank you  very much for the feedback on potential High Interest
> Topics for your Monday session at the ICANN Public Meeting in Los
> Angeles.  Based on all your feedback, we’ve now got a list of 12
> potential topics.
> 
> Given time constraints and many different panel participants, you
> will all recall that for the Buenos Aires meeting we focused on
> just two primary topics.  I think, if possible, that should be your
> target again this time for the Los Angeles session.
> 
> Between now and early next week, please share with me your ”top
> three” topics from the list below.  I will compile the results and
> hope that the feedback will narrow the topic choice to just a few
> topics that we can then confirm on next week’s CEO call with Fadi.
> 
> Here’s the list we have to work from based on all your input:
> 
> ·      1. NetMundial Initiative and Hand-off ·      2. Affirmation
> Review of gTLD Expansion ·      3. Planning for Next Round of New
> gTLDs ·      4. NomCom Improvements ·      5. Universal acceptance
> of new gTLDs (Two separate suggestions) ·      6. Disposition of
> Excess New gTLD Fees and Auction Proceeds. ·      7. Integration of
> the GAC into the GNSO policy process (also see GNSO Council
> suggestion - number 11 below)
> 
> GNSO Council collected topics submitted by Jonathan:
> 
> •      8. Trust In ICANN – A perception exists (real or imagined)
> that big decisions are made that exclude or disregard community
> input.  What causes for mistrust can be eliminated, and how? How do
> we see ICANN accountability as functional and effective? How should
> government influence work, where are its limits? Perhaps instead of
> focusing on one narrow topic we should initiate a series of
> bottom-up debates on how the community would like to see ICANN
> develop in the next years -- an “Agenda 2020” if you will. •
> 9. Legitimacy in Internet governance – The Internet today resembles
> a country where 1% of the population governs 99% of the population,
> and most don't even know that the 1% exists! Legitimate democratic
> governance depends on the awareness and participation of the
> populous. Legitimacy in Internet governance requires greater
> awareness and participation of stakeholders. Civil society is the
> most disenfranchised part of the whole processes, and it has the
> most to loose. •      10. Future of the Internet – Is ICANN too
> focused on a circa 2000 Internet model, where human-driven Internet
> action and URLs dominated.  That is not true today, and will bring
> some even more profound changes in the future.  Two examples
> include machine to machine traffic and “in application” services.
> How can ICANN address these issues? •      11. Future role of the
> GAC -  There is a sliver of "public policy" in everything at ICANN,
> and the nature of government participation makes governments
> reluctant to accept anything short of immediate and total adoption
> of their advice. Where do we go from here?  Can the relevance of
> the SO/ACs be preserved, or is every topic or material issue
> destined to become a GAC/Board negotiation?  What limitations or
> backstops can check government influence, while still allowing for
> full consideration of their advice? •      12. What is the essence
> of ICANN?"  Is ICANN the corporation, is ICANN the community, or is
> it both? (this could capture both the trust and future role of the
> GAC topics.
> 
> For your information, it seems that a few of the suggested topics
> listed above will already be covered by other sessions that are in
> the planning stages including a session on Universal acceptance,
> GAC-GNSO in the joint meeting, Netmundial in a separate update, a
> new gTLD session or two and a Board discussion on the Review of the
> Nominating Committee.
> 
> With that in mind, please provide your feedback to this list by
> close of business next Tuesday and I will consolidate/compile the
> feedback. Its sufficient to send me a note listing BY NUMBER the
> three topics that are your top choices.
> 
> Looking forward to talking with you all next week.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action
> in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
> than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express
> permission of the sender. If you received this communication in
> error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
> computer.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUEzguAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpn0UH/iqw482V5LHFbB3biMJJ4sou
OBN5rJjYAc1g2wU+3Lf2lgIvIHx3Re09gNBYIXSlDlTaeC1hg5874myYpfC0c5WC
K4rrFTx42RW+nhAHUPDlLsARJ+iffRcdRvd0VBeZtd3thO8R6CclsEH3A8uxQ/Eh
DZTEuQD68wx2FbVwEj9+1GW11Cjc2wKLQCQxrs+21QUV91a801guG6WMleFhJcCN
Q6oBHvZCtgKEHVAahRHoM1VR6vp96fWyJFBzAWkomrgd/yqLtQSJSUYTDpz5/Yjv
HkmFuZh7+qbObA+nenT1gyzT+DwLqiPxVvBzAhS2SvpswHT4Q1kJIQWPl3Tid8Q=
=xOMy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----