Hi Agree w/ geopolitical issues. Thanks Rafael Zanatta who tried to develop a proposal for this but we could not finish it up to 24jan deadline. Is there any leeway for new proposers? (I'm just an advisor) Em 25/01/2017 03:01, "NCSG-DISCUSS automatic digest system" < [log in to unmask]> escreveu: There are 11 messages totaling 5324 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. IGF workshop proposals? (11) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:43:06 +0100 From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Hi As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden their perspectives. Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... Best Bill > On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's remit. > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? >> Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM >> UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> >> [log in to unmask] >> >> >> May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure of IGF. >> >> Carlos Vera >> >> >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>> It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its effectiveness for us would be diminished... >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: IGF workshop proposals? >>>> Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM >>>> UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 >>>> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask] > >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, >>>> for a while now, and we could do so again this year. >>>> >>>> But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon >>>> >>>> If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it >>>> happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has >>>> been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, >>>> please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. >>>> >>>> If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, >>>> that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, >>>> but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> > ************************************************ William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), www.williamdrake.org ************************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:50:42 +0100 From: Florian Daniel <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? +1 for William and his Cybersecurity idea! It would be great to bring some goverment folks together with NCSG members and someone from the big cybersecurity companies. That should promise some interesting discussions. If we would go forward with this idea, I would be happy to help organizing. Best, Florian On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:43 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > her juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments > have construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance > and therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be > highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part > of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS > are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have > no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some > exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden > their perspectives. > > Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies > could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had > pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal > ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. > Florian DANIEL Sonnenweg 6 4280 Königswiesen [log in to unmask] +43660 36 80 504 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:23:03 +0100 From: Michael Oghia <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? I also really support the idea of having a session on multistakeholder collaboration. This can be a great opportunity to advocate for it. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:43 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi > > As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual > participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, > WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been > consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and > multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that > speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here > in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly > structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of > multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances > one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or > as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect > governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be > helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately > marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another > juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have > construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and > therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be > highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part > of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS > are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have > no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some > exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden > their perspectives. > > Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies > could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had > pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal > ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. > > Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more > directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try > to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us > will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... > > Best > > Bill > > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the > NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's > remit. > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? > Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM > UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 > From: [log in to unmask] > To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> > [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > > > May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure > of IGF. > > Carlos Vera > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into > the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the > WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic > from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and > how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be > extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in > Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals > to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its > effectiveness for us would be diminished... > > Ayden Férdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: IGF workshop proposals? > Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM > UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 > From: [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] > > Dear all, > > NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, > for a while now, and we could do so again this year. > > But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon > > If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it > happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has > been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, > please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. > > If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, > that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, > but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. > > Thank you, > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > ************************************************ > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ************************************************ > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:26:28 +0000 From: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Strongly support the cybersecurity idea, and might even drag myself to Geneva if we get it on the agenda. -J From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:43 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Hi As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden their perspectives. Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... Best Bill On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]<mailto:ic [log in to unmask]>> wrote: That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's remit. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure of IGF. Carlos Vera On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]<mailto:ic [log in to unmask]>> wrote: It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its effectiveness for us would be diminished... Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: IGF workshop proposals? Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Dear all, NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, for a while now, and we could do so again this year. But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen ************************************************ William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org> ************************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:01:02 +0000 From: Wisdom Donkor <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? +1 On Tuesday, January 24, 2017, Florian Daniel <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > +1 for William and his Cybersecurity idea! > It would be great to bring some goverment folks together with NCSG members > and someone from the big cybersecurity companies. That should promise some > interesting discussions. If we would go forward with this idea, I would be > happy to help organizing. > > Best, > > Florian > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:43 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote: > >> her juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments >> have construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance >> and therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be >> highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part >> of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS >> are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have >> no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some >> exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden >> their perspectives. >> >> Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies >> could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had >> pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal >> ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. >> > > > > > Florian DANIEL > > Sonnenweg 6 > 4280 Königswiesen > [log in to unmask] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);> > +43660 36 80 504 > > -- *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:45:30 +0000 From: matthew shears <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? I would support both cyber and multistakeholder workshops. Cyber focus will be interesting as we will just have come out of GCCS2017. Multistakeholder could focus on working models at national and regional levels - and how we promote them. Matthew On 24/01/2017 08:26, James Gannon wrote: > > Strongly support the cybersecurity idea, and might even drag myself to > Geneva if we get it on the agenda. > > -J > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *William Drake > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:43 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: IGF workshop proposals? > > Hi > > As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual > participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, > WTO, WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that > have been consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and > multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal > that speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on > minds here in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if > properly structure assessment of the comparative strengths and > weaknesses of multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under > which circumstances one would want to choose one vs. the other or a > blend. Alternatively, or as a subtheme of this, a session on how and > to what extent/effect governments are able to participate in > multistakeholder processes could be helpful (a dominant belief remains > that governments are inappropriately marginalized in ICANN and more > ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another juicy one might be > ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have construed as > being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and therefore > something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be > highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important > part of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues > like RDS are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the > folks who a) have no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, > and b) could use some exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe > that might help broaden their perspectives. > > Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies > could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve > had pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC > proposal ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is > possible. > > Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast > more directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might > want to try to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. > And if enough of us will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to > do an NCUC party... > > Best > > Bill > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we > as the NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls > within ICANN's remit. > > Ayden > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? > > Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM > > UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 > > From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic > structure of IGF. > > Carlos Vera > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building > privacy into the Registration Directory Service. A > workshop which explores where the WHOIS protocol has come > from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic from the > perspective of privacy (along with how it enables > doxxing), and how it is evolving – for better or for > worse – would, in my view, be extremely useful. That said, > if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in Geneva to lead > this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals > to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, > its effectiveness for us would be diminished... > > Ayden Férdeline > > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: IGF workshop proposals? > > Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM > > UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 > > From: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Dear all, > > NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet > Governance Forum, IGF, > > for a while now, and we could do so again this year. > > But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon > > If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to > work to make it > > happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request > deadline has > > been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider > proposals, > > please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, > Jan 24. > > If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a > vague idea, > > that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into > complete proposal, > > but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the > sooner the better. > > Thank you, > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > ************************************************ > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> > ************************************************ > -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:53:06 +0000 From: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? I like it a lot, sounds like the basis for a good proposal. -James From: matthew shears [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:46 AM To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? I would support both cyber and multistakeholder workshops. Cyber focus will be interesting as we will just have come out of GCCS2017. Multistakeholder could focus on working models at national and regional levels - and how we promote them. Matthew On 24/01/2017 08:26, James Gannon wrote: Strongly support the cybersecurity idea, and might even drag myself to Geneva if we get it on the agenda. -J From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:43 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Hi As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden their perspectives. Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... Best Bill On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]<mailto:ic [log in to unmask]>> wrote: That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's remit. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure of IGF. Carlos Vera On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]<mailto:ic [log in to unmask]>> wrote: It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its effectiveness for us would be diminished... Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: IGF workshop proposals? Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Dear all, NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, for a while now, and we could do so again this year. But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen ************************************************ William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org> ************************************************ -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:53:29 +0100 From: Michael Oghia <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? +1 Matthew on presenting working models. This could be an opportunity to demonstrate tangible cases where multistakeholder engagement made a significant difference. It could also be a chance to demonstrate multistakeholder collaboration, for instance, by asking ISOC and others invested in the model to join the discussion as well, or ask NCSG members to detail experiences with the multistakeholder model in their work. Best, -Michael On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, matthew shears <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I would support both cyber and multistakeholder workshops. > > Cyber focus will be interesting as we will just have come out of GCCS2017. > > Multistakeholder could focus on working models at national and regional > levels - and how we promote them. > > Matthew > > On 24/01/2017 08:26, James Gannon wrote: > > Strongly support the cybersecurity idea, and might even drag myself to > Geneva if we get it on the agenda. > > > > -J > > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *William Drake > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:43 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: IGF workshop proposals? > > > > Hi > > > > As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual > participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, > WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been > consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and > multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that > speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here > in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly > structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of > multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances > one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or > as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect > governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be > helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately > marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another > juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have > construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and > therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be > highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part > of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS > are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have > no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some > exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden > their perspectives. > > > > Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies > could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had > pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal > ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. > > > > Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more > directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try > to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us > will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... > > > > Best > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the > NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's > remit. > > > > Ayden > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? > > Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM > > UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 > > From: [log in to unmask] > > To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> > > [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > > > > > > May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure > of IGF. > > > > Carlos Vera > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into > the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the > WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic > from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and > how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be > extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in > Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals > to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its > effectiveness for us would be diminished... > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: IGF workshop proposals? > > Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM > > UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 > > From: [log in to unmask] > > To: [log in to unmask] > > > > Dear all, > > > > NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, > > for a while now, and we could do so again this year. > > > > But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon > > > > If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it > > happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has > > been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, > > please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. > > > > If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, > > that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, > > but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. > > > > Thank you, > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > > > ************************************************ > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ************************************************ > > > > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:56:09 +0000 From: Olévié Kouami <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Hi all ! +1 @Bill idea. The MS model is fundamental for the IGF. We must continue the fight for its total adoption by all the stakeholders. I support. Warm regards and cheers ! Olévié Le 24 janv. 2017 07:45, "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]> a écrit : > Hi > > As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual > participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, > WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been > consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and > multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that > speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here > in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly > structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of > multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances > one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or > as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect > governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be > helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately > marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another > juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have > construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and > therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be > highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part > of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS > are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have > no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some > exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden > their perspectives. > > Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies > could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had > pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal > ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. > > Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more > directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try > to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us > will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... > > Best > > Bill > > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the > NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's > remit. > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? > Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM > UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 > From: [log in to unmask] > To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> > [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > > > May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure > of IGF. > > Carlos Vera > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into > the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the > WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic > from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and > how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be > extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in > Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals > to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its > effectiveness for us would be diminished... > > Ayden Férdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: IGF workshop proposals? > Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM > UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 > From: [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] > > Dear all, > > NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, > for a while now, and we could do so again this year. > > But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon > > If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it > happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has > been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, > please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. > > If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, > that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, > but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. > > Thank you, > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > ************************************************ > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ************************************************ > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:17:44 +0000 From: Farell Folly <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? If the cyber workshop will focus on cyber security, I am willing to help. Best Regards @__f_f__ about.me/farell ________________________________. Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety. Le 24 janv. 2017 09:46, "matthew shears" <[log in to unmask]> a écrit : I would support both cyber and multistakeholder workshops. Cyber focus will be interesting as we will just have come out of GCCS2017. Multistakeholder could focus on working models at national and regional levels - and how we promote them. Matthew On 24/01/2017 08:26, James Gannon wrote: Strongly support the cybersecurity idea, and might even drag myself to Geneva if we get it on the agenda. -J *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *William Drake *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:43 AM *To:* [log in to unmask] *Subject:* Re: IGF workshop proposals? Hi As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden their perspectives. Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... Best Bill On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>> wrote: That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's remit. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 From: [log in to unmask] To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure of IGF. Carlos Vera On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its effectiveness for us would be diminished... Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: IGF workshop proposals? Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 From: [log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] Dear all, NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, for a while now, and we could do so again this year. But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. Thank you, -- Tapani Tarvainen ************************************************ William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), www.williamdrake.org ************************************************ -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> -- Regards @__f_f__ PhD Candidate, Universität der Bundeswehr München Computer Security | Internet of Things about.me/farell ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:30:31 -0200 From: Louise Marie Hurel <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? I support Matthew's comments on the proposal. I do believe this also adds to the BPF Cybersecurity and the NRI's work - an important cross-pollination between IGF-related efforts. All the best, 2017-01-24 12:17 GMT-02:00 Farell Folly <[log in to unmask]>: > If the cyber workshop will focus on cyber security, I am willing to help. > > > > Best Regards > @__f_f__ > about.me/farell > ________________________________. > Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety. > Le 24 janv. 2017 09:46, "matthew shears" <[log in to unmask]> a écrit : > > I would support both cyber and multistakeholder workshops. > > Cyber focus will be interesting as we will just have come out of GCCS2017. > > Multistakeholder could focus on working models at national and regional > levels - and how we promote them. > > Matthew > > On 24/01/2017 08:26, James Gannon wrote: > > Strongly support the cybersecurity idea, and might even drag myself to > Geneva if we get it on the agenda. > > > > -J > > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *William Drake > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:43 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: IGF workshop proposals? > > > > Hi > > > > As the next IGF is in Geneva and will likely draw a larger than usual > participation by governments (e.g. national mission people who do ITU, WTO, > WIPO, etc.) and intergovernmental organization staff/leaders that have been > consistently skeptical of if not openly hostile to ICANN and > multistakeholder cooperation, it might be worth considering a proposal that > speaks more to the geopolitical ‘big issues’ that are still on minds here > in UN-land. For example, I could imagine a very useful if properly > structure assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of > multistakeholder vs multilateral institutions and under which circumstances > one would want to choose one vs. the other or a blend. Alternatively, or > as a subtheme of this, a session on how and to what extent/effect > governments are able to participate in multistakeholder processes could be > helpful (a dominant belief remains that governments are inappropriately > marginalized in ICANN and more ‘adult supervision’ is needed). Another > juicy one might be ‘cybersecurity’, which the ITU and may governments have > construed as being entirely outside the realm of Internet governance and > therefore something the ITU can lay claim to; SSAC-type issues could be > highlighted to show that multistakeholder solutions are an important part > of the mix. In contrast, deep dives on individual ICANN issues like RDS > are important to us but may be less likely to draw in the folks who a) have > no idea what such issues mean and why they matter, and b) could use some > exposure to the ‘alternative facts’ they believe that might help broaden > their perspectives. > > > > Of course it doesn’t have to be either/or, NCSG and its constituencies > could propose several workshops and see which the MAG accepts. We’ve had > pretty good luck thus far, at least I don’t recall a NCSG or NCUC proposal > ever being turned down, so more than one bite at the apple is possible. > > > > Lastly, we might want to consider something for Day 0 that is cast more > directly in outreach terms. In any event, my point is we might want to try > to leverage the location’s rather specific properties. And if enough of us > will be here, I could reserve a bar or resto to do an NCUC party... > > > > Best > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 19:13, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > That is a good topic, and one which should happen, but I think we as the > NCSG should be pitching a workshop on a topic which falls within ICANN's > remit. > > > > Ayden > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: IGF workshop proposals? > > Local Time: 23 January 2017 6:11 PM > > UTC Time: 23 January 2017 18:11 > > From: [log in to unmask] > > To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> > > [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > > > > > > May I suggest to work on supporting national IGFs as the basic structure > of IGF. > > > > Carlos Vera > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > It would be great to keep up the momentum re: building privacy into > the Registration Directory Service. A workshop which explores where the > WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is today, why it is problematic > from the perspective of privacy (along with how it enables doxxing), and > how it is evolving – for better or for worse – would, in my view, be > extremely useful. That said, if we don't have Stephanie on the ground in > Geneva to lead this conversation and to offer evidence-informed rebuttals > to the perspectives other stakeholders bring to the table, its > effectiveness for us would be diminished... > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: IGF workshop proposals? > > Local Time: 19 January 2017 1:32 PM > > UTC Time: 19 January 2017 13:32 > > From: [log in to unmask] > > To: [log in to unmask] > > > > Dear all, > > > > NCSG has been organizing workshops in Internet Governance Forum, IGF, > > for a while now, and we could do so again this year. > > > > But if we want ICANN funding for it we must apply soon > > > > If you have ideas for a workshop and are willing to work to make it > > happen, please let me know. As Special Budget Request deadline has > > been moved to January 30 and we need time to consider proposals, > > please submit your proposal by 23:59 UTC next Tuesday, Jan 24. > > > > If you have less-than-complete proposal or even just a vague idea, > > that's welcome, too, I can try help turn that into complete proposal, > > but in that case please contact me as ASAP - the sooner the better. > > > > Thank you, > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > > > ************************************************ > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ************************************************ > > > > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> > > -- > Regards > @__f_f__ > > PhD Candidate, Universität der Bundeswehr München > Computer Security | Internet of Things > about.me/farell > -- LOUISE MARIE HUREL *Researcher* Center for Technology and Society at Getúlio Vargas Foundation Center for Political and Strategic Studies at the Naval War College - Brazil Skype: louise.dias +55 21 993 239 787 [log in to unmask] ------------------------------ End of NCSG-DISCUSS Digest - 23 Jan 2017 to 24 Jan 2017 (#2017-18) ******************************************************************