Hi,
Thanks.
BTW, who came up with the original list. Did I miss the time when we
did that in a so-called bottom-up manner?
avri
On 15-Sep-14 06:57, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> thanks for sending your selections for the top 3 topics.
> Regarding Avri suggestions, they were shared but no response from other
> groups. we will have to make selection for topics to discuss with the
> NCSG-Board in the LA meeting and those can be definitely candidate topic
> since there are a lot of support.
>
> the result of the polling is above and the top 3 (that I will send) are:
> 9; 1; 6, 11(ex-aequo)
>
> 1. 7 votes
>
> 2. 1 votes
>
> 3. 0 votes
>
> 4. 1 votes
>
> 5. 1 votes
>
> 6. 6 votes
>
> 7. 4 votes
>
> 8. 5 votes
>
> 9. 8 votes
>
> 10. 0 votes
>
> 11. 6 votes
>
> 12. 4 votes
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-09-10 23:02 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> 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]>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
|
