2 Affirmation review of gTLD expansion.
8 Trust in ICANN
11 Future role of the GAC
--------------------------------------------------------
READ CAREFULLY. By [reading this email|accepting this material|accepting
this payment|accepting this business-card|viewing this t-shirt|reading this
sticker] you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all
obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements,
licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap,
confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies
("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its
partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice
to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have
the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your
employer.
For avoidance of doubt: This email does not constitute permission to add me
to your mailing list.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Milan, Stefania <[log in to unmask]>
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:* venerd́ 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]
> Subject: Re: Preparation for ICANN LA meeting starting / LA HIGH-INTEREST
> TOPIC SESSION
> To: [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]>
> 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]> 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]>
> 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.
>