Tx you for sharing these notes, Maria. For those of us who could not attend, they are very interesting and valuable. Best, Kathy : > Hi all, > > It just occurred to me that these very rough notes of last week's > ICANN call on Internet governance might be of interest to ppl who > weren't on the call. > > The first part is my summarised notes of the discussion, pretty much > just what Fadi said in response to questions. The second part is a cut > and paste of the chatroom discussion. > > The headline point for us is that Fadi is now emphatic that > surveillance will NOT be on the Brazil agenda. > > All the best, Maria > > Icann igf call 7 nov 2013 > > Fadi > > Wctd next year and plenipot are intergovt, now we have igf 2014 in > Istanbul (2015 brazil, 2016 mexico), and brazil conference. Date tba > after BA mtg. An ‘invitee’ conference led bya steering committee set > up for the conference, committee to include CGI and global > multistakeholder community including icann, and other cs and business. > Conditional support by icann for conf till they see agenda etc. > Matching our community interests. Asked that it steer clear from > specific topics such as surveillance because it’s not relevant and we > don’t have ‘any specific connection’ to it. There will be a stment of > principles for all stakeholders to be comfortable subscribing to. V > high level, like cgi ones or oecd. Second thing conf will focus on > will be how IG works, how to evolve and globalise the existing insts, > including i*s. And what new mechs cd be put in place to address other > topics (orphan issues) – emph mechanisms not insts. Goal is not to > create new insts. > > Steve delbianco – what’s the evidence for there being more > multilateral moves this year? > > Fadi – lots. South korea supports funcitons moving to itu. India > pushing for similar. Seeing it from middle country govts in asia, > Africa and latin America makes us concerned. Proposals to regional > meeting for cstd – was Egypt, now e. Europe tba – surprised by > suggestions to move issues from IT activity into multilateral fora. We > are concerned. Multistakeholder moves pushed by usg, but usg is not in > the same posn it was a year ago. We’re concerned about its coalescing > power at the moment. The forces right now that favour a multilateral > approach are getting stronger. Our ability to respond and be ready has > to be sharpened. > > Steve – when korea says cybersecurity, how does that implicate the dns? > > Fadi – we can hide in our little box and believe all of us are not > implicated when the broader ig preference pressure is moving another > way. That’s naive to be frank. All the leaders of these respectable > orgs i* agreed we cannot just hide behind our remits and not take resp > for the pressures that are the entire ig ecosystem of which we are a > part. > > Keith drazek – brazil mtg participants need invitation from the govt? > > Fadi – don’t know, tba. > > FADI – it wd be worse for us if this conf wasn’t happening, lking at > calendar for nx yr, nothing multis till October in Istanbul. > > keith Fadi seems to be hinting that ICANN will seek increasing > independence from the US Government for the IANA function. The > continuance of the US Governments administrative oversight of the IANA > function seems more critical in the current environment, and ICANN, > other stakeholders including sensible Governments should perhaps be > supporting the status quo, rather than the potential unknown aspects > of a hurried devolvement to ICANN? > > Fadi – we are not in a hurry. Need for more oversight is not news. I’m > lking at how that happens in a safe secure and calm way. On protocol > parameters, we perform a function defined by the ietf. There is > clarity with that function. Same cd be said about numbers with the nro > – we’re performing function on behalf of the nro, the policy comes > from there. On names, that comes from the cctld, ccnso as well as from > the gnso and we wk in partnership with the root operators to ensure > that happens. So we have v clear lines of legitimacy and authority > that come from these multistakeholder grps that provide us with this > policy. That will be the case today and tomorrow. The question is one > of oversight and that needs to be revised as is contemplated. > > Team is constantly on the road, forming this coalition as fast as we > can for all comms of IG to come together and part in common set of > principles and messages. We are committed and engaged and need you and > everyone who believes in the importance of this model to speak up and > part with us as loudly as possible in promoting this. > > A lot has happened in last 8 weeks and that’s causing ppl angst. We > have to communicate more and more so everyone feels more and more part > of it and directing this together. > > Keith Drazek: As referenced in the Montevideo statement, what does > "globalization of the IANA function" mean? How do you envision such > globalization taking place? Will the community have a role in > determining the nature of any such globalization? > > The community has to frame what that will mean. They’ve given me the > mandate to start it. Much of what i was told in first year was making > icann more global more international. Chuck gomes from your own > company pushed on that in the first few weeks. Three parts; change the > dna of icann and its global operational posture from a us western > centric entity to a truly global one. That has moved miles and wil > continue. Second, to think about fundamental core agreements and legal > positions of icann and how over time icann will have less of a us > corporate presence, an aoc not nec signed with one govt but rather all > stakeholders, these fundamental tenets that give us legitimacy. We as > a comm should reflect on them, this is not a staff bd actin but comm > one, calmly and without rush, but with firm commitment that icnn’s > posture will be a global posture. Third, is iana contract. Has an > oversight that needs to evolve from single govt oversight to global > multist oversight. > > Only the comm can determine how that (the iana function) works. > Period. We have not yet started that process. We just staed what’s > been stated for yrs which is that that function has always been a > function that needs to evolve into its own oversight provided by the > multis community. Together we need to understn what that means in a > way that not only satisfies our comm but ensure the funct is global > transparent and accepted by global comm. And we’re all on equal > footing without one govt or company or org having a unique role. It’s > not going to happen with any urgency. This stabilises the system. The > leverage shd remain with themultistkohders. > > Re. Q on isoc chapters. > > This is the biggest gift of bali that we have come together and will > be coalescing around a common set of things. > > It’s most imp that what we do nx yr is not defensive. Yes we must make > sure internet stays an open and free resource for everyone’s good. We > must do this not by saying what doesn’t work but by offering pro > active, global positive approaches for what will work. > > CHAT > > AVRI Anyone listening in on the current WGEC consultations will > realize that many governments are working really hard on that ML goal. > > Steve DelBianco: question: what evidence do we have that the "shift" > to multilateral was more pronounced this year than in any prior > year?There has always been pressure from governments (not from the > public). > > David Olive: Thank yu Steve > > David Olive: Steve D> Your question will be first in the order > > adam: Steve, certainly not slowed down since WCIT last > December.Governments keeping up pressure in the UN, particularly > reacting to and using Snowden. > > adam: And as Avri says, strong efforts from govts in a meeting of the > working group on enhanced cooperation going on now in Geneva to > promote multilateral institutions > > adam: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx > > Avri Doria: Steve, and while it is the same governments as alwasy, > they are certainly using the UNCSTD and the WG on Enhanced Cooperation > to make a strong push for ML mechanisms > > Steve DelBianco: @Adam and Avri: Do governments regard theGAC as a > multilateral institution?If not, why not? > > Bill Drake: > And as Avri says, strong efforts from govts in a meeting > of the working group on enhanced cooperation going on now in Geneva to > promote multilateral institutions > > Bill Drake: I think they are weak efforts > > Avri Doria: Steve, the do not.At least those goverments don't as it > does not have oversight decsion making power.They do not recognize > equal footing with the rest of us as being part of ML. > > Bill Drake: Mexico? > > adam: yes, 2016. > > Bill Drake: two years in a row in the same region? > > adam: not considered same region. Or sub region > > Bill Drake: ah right > > Keith Davidson: Steve, at the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary there was > encouragement that the ITU "instruct the GAC to take control of ICANN" > - until it was realised that an inter-governmental organisation cannot > instruct another inter-governmental organisation. So at least the GAC > is recognised as an IGO... > > Bill Drake: The Steering Committee is not very representative, > especially of civil society > > adam: (mexico and dependent on renewal of mandate, but very helpful to > having renewal happen) > > Patrik Fältström: What status GAC has depends on who you ask. Some > countries do believe a proper composition is according to UN rules, > and they also call it "democratic" which implies that each country > have one voice (vote). Other countries do believe more in a consensus > based model (also between countries), object a UN model and want more > a GAC like model. A third group want something else with some special > roles for some parties. > > Bill Drake: The second item steps directly into the space the UN > Enhanced Cooperation process is struggling with simultaneously > > Keith Drazek: Did I hear correctly that attendees to the Brazil > meeting will require an invitation? > > David Olive: THanks Keith You wil be # 2 in order for question > > Avri Doria: Iran and KSA as well > > Steve DelBianco: @Fadi -- When S. Korea says Cybersecurity, how does > that implicate DNS? > > Hector Manoff: I would like to make a suggestion > > Hector Manoff: My suggestion is directed to enhance the participation > of the individual coming from developing countries > > Patrik Fältström: What specifically do ICANN help with regarding local > IGF meetings in difficult areas (like local IGF meetings) and how is > ICANN in practice helping/working so that such local events can help > with over all IG issues described by ICANN during 2014? For example, > ifa local IGF is before or after april meeting might impact what > "successful" agenda items should be. > > David Olive: Tanks you Hector and Patrik , next in order for teh > question after Keith > > Avri Doria: This is one of those cases where if we don't coorperate > among all I* we will all lose collectively. > > Patrik Fältström: Avri: I agree, but that is also why I asked the > question ;-) > > adam: what would ICANN like to see on the agenda of the meeting -- I > have ideas (of course :-)), and how do you see the process after > May.This should not be a one off, but the start of an ongoing program > of work > > keith Fadi seems to be hinting that ICANN will seek increasing > independence from the US Government for the IANA function. The > continuance of the US Governments administrative oversight of the IANA > function seems more critical in the current environment, and ICANN, > other stakeholders including sensible Governments should perhaps be > supporting the status quo, rather than the potential unknown aspects > of a hurried devolvement to ICANN? > > Patrik Fältström: Thanks, I think ICANN should publicise and do much > better outreach regarding what your plans are, what you do, and what > your tactics are. This as many individuals on this call actually > already is working with various IGF things. And as Avri and others > say, coordination can and must be better. I guess this message is for > Theresa, and I am happy to talk with you about it :-) > > Sam Lanfranco: There is a need for a broader and deeper strategy of > stakeholder awareness to build involvement. > > Keith Drazek: As referenced in the Montevideo statement, what does > "globalization of the IANA function" mean? How do you envision such > globalization taking place? Will the community have a role in > determining the nature of any such globalization? > >