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?
>
>