There is also the DNSSEC workshop that we coordinate with. I agree with Patrick that the Technical Silo :-)-O has delivered very much bang for very little buck. Have we actually defined ICANN's mission? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On 8 Jan 2016, at 10:27, Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> wrote:

I don't understand either.

Please remember that there are a number of various outreach programs by ICANN at the ICANN meetings that do coordinate with each other. The two that I as SSAC chair is specifically keeping my eyes on is the originally ccNSO Tech Day, that is now called just Tech Day, and the DNS (mostly DNSSEC related) education and outreach SSAC runs (one for newcomers and one more deep technical).

There is an overlap in people working with these three different programs, and we try to ensure that they together create a good outreach program for the participating persons.

If we in this discussion is questioning why ICANN is spending resources on these meetings, then lets have that discussion. I am happy to defend the small amount of money spent for the very high quality program put together.

If the questions on this discussion is something else, maybe we should make it more clear which ones they are. :-)

HELP!

Patrik

...

On 8 Jan 2016, at 10:16, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

As the chair of the TechWg I am really wondering what we are talking about here.

So outreach would also be content censorship, perhaps? Excellent, we can remove the B meetings from the agenda and we don't have to worry about travel funding so much any more.

Smaller TLDs (cc and g) need all the help they can get, and it most definitively is within mission.

greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

...

...

On 8 Jan 2016, at 00:51, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 06:21:20PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote: Is training people on the DNS or DNSEC in the same category as content censorship?

Is capacity building in the sense of training people on DNS or DNSSEC really outside ICANN's mission, in the CCWG's proposal? It seems to me that that one could argue it helps the "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems" realm.

If ICANN decided to get into teaching people how to deploy VoIP using SIP, however, I'd wonder why. Or into web administration, or perhaps (more in line with the analogy) WordPress or Drupal administration. And those things do seem to me to be approximately as relevant to what ICANN is doing as content censorship: I don't think ICANN should do either.

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod