Hi,

I would also very much like there to be a discussion about human rights considerations. Ideally, this would have already happened a long time ago.

I also like 8 (Trust in ICANN), but assume this conversation will take place anyway during the accountability process, so my other two choices would be:

6. Disposition of Excess New gTLD Fees and Auction Proceeds.
11. Future role of the GAC.

It’d be nice if a discussion about the funds raised by the gTLD fees/auctions led to an investment into human rights considerations.

Thanks.

Amr

On Sep 12, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> -----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-----