Wolfgang, This was indeed my understanding: this is why I have not mentioned who made which statement, except for formal presentations or for Fadi's statements, where I was assuming he was speaking in his official capacity. However, I still think that a short summary, even in the form of a bullet point list of the ideas circulated, whether there was agreement or not, could be useful to the wider community who did not have the opportunity to participate. Otherwise we take the risk of not making out the most from the investment in time and resources that an important event, like the Studienkreis, represents for the community. Maybe in Sofia we can address also this subject, and do like it is customary for brainstorming formats: you record the bullet points, without commenting on who raised the point nor whether it was applauded or booed. It will be food for thought to others. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Inviato: giovedì 26 settembre 2013 15:15 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe; Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: Studienkreis
H everybody
the ICANN Studienkreis works under the Chatham Huse Rules. It is now more a "brainstorming meeting" than a "knowledge transfer conference" nor a "consensus meeting" where we work towards an agreed statement. Everybody is free to report to the broader community her or his take away and different perspetives are welcome (by respecting CH-Rules / that is NOT to link ideas, issues and statements to individuals).
BTW, next meeting is Sofia, Augst 28/29, 2014. Best
wolfgang
________________________________
Fra: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org på vegne af Roberto Gaetano Sendt: on 25-09-2013 22:27 Til: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Emne: [EURO-Discuss] R: Studienkreis
Hi, Bill. I fully agree with you when you say that the discussion was on "the impact of the surveillance revelations on the politics of global Internet governance, including on ICANN". That's what I tried to summarize saying that: "the vast majority of the participants were critical about the principle of limiting the privacy and controlling the data exchanged on the Internet", as a result of what I quoted as "the wide impact that the Snowden case had on all participants". My perception was that the only argument against was about security, intended as "national security". Otherwise said "we do surveillance to prevent terrorism" - therefore surveillance for (homeland) security reasons. But maybe I have missed bits of the discussion, thanks for the comment. As a matter of fact, it would be helpful if in future Studienkreise we had a sort of an "official" proceedings text, so that people can get a fair reporting of the conference. Would it make sense if all participants to the conference provide their addition/deletion/correction, or their own statements, so that we can put together an agreed summary? Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di William Drake Inviato: mercoledì 25 settembre 2013 13:01 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Studienkreis
Hi Roberto
One small point:
On Sep 25, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Then a session on Internet Governance was planned. However, due to the wide impact that the Snowden case had on all participants, the discussion has focused almost only on privacy vs. security issues. My personal impression is that the vast majority of the participants were critical about the principle of limiting the privacy and controlling the data exchanged on the Internet even if this could address security issues like, for instance, detecting potentially
illegal activities.
But, as I said, this is just my personal opinion having listened to the contributions.
One key point of the discussion has been the role of the different stakeholders in shaping the legislation and keeping a tight control to ensure that rights are preserved. Fadi commented that this is another example of the need for a multi-stakeholder model.
Maybe it's because I was moderating, but I feel like I was in a different session. The one I was in spent two and half hours debating the impact of the surveillance revelations on the politics of global Internet governance, including on ICANN. I don't actually recall much discussion about the precise privacy/security balance people desired etc. But this is just a quibble...Thanks for the nice recap.
What's interesting is that as far as I can know nobody has blogged tweeted etc. about the little bombshells Fadi dropped concerning his desire to internationalize the AoC, revise root management viz. ccTLDs, etc. But maybe I'm just not looking hard enough...
Cheers
Bill _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org/>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org