I made the mistake of not taking notes while the meeting was going on, so there are details that I do not remember, please feel free to add/correct what is needed. This year, the format has been slightly different. With the exception of the first session, there have been no formal presentations, but rather short introductions by resource persons followed by wider discussion and Q/A among all participants. Fadi Chehadé was supposed to attend only part of the first day, but changed his plans and remained for the second day as well, indicating that he was extremely satisfied about the discussion and the contribution by the participants. He also answered specific questions about the ICANN plans. The first session was about the status of the Internet in Italy. Antonio Amendola (Senior Advisor to Deputy Minister for Economic Development) presented the apologies of the Deputy Minister, Antonio Catricalà, who has been unable to attend. Several personalities (see the attached programme) have presented different aspects of the Internet in Italy. I am not aware if the slides of the presentations are available for distribution. Now the coordination on Internet matters is ensured by the Ministry of Economic Development, while in the past different ministries like for instance the Ministry of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Industry had partial responsibility on it. The engagement of the Italian government on the digital agenda has been stressed by several participants. Fadi has reported about his meeting with the Deputy Minister Catricalà in Rome the day before, in which the potentially important role that Italy can play in the Internet governance matters has been discussed. This session has been closed by the presentation of the .IT by the Director of the Institute of Informatics and Telematics, an institute depending from the Italian top research institution, the CNR (National Council of Research). The second part of the afternoon was opened by Fadi, with a description of the challenges that ICANN is facing and the way he plans to address them. The key point that he has addressed is ICANNs equal multi-stakeholder model, that has to guarantee that all stakeholder have not only a voice, but equal voice in the process. 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. The first session of the second day addressed the issue of the introduction of new TLDs. The different resource persons brought the perspective of their stakeholder community: Registries, Registrars, Governments, IP, Business. Although I was there representing PIR, I realized that there were no other resource persons speaking for the user community, so I raised also the issue of the scarce information available to registrants, that are by and large unaware of the impact of the new TLDs. The impact has been debated at length during the whole morning. It has been recognized that there will be a big change in the marketplace, not only because of the number of new TLDs, but also because the vertical integration blurs the distinction between registries and registrars. This will require a rethinking of the GNSO structure. The GNSO Review was planned for this year but is likely to be postponed until we can appreciate better the impact of the new TLDs in the Internet community and in the multi-stakeholder model. Fadi commented that he changed the organizational structure of ICANN to address the complexity of this problem. To a specific question, he answered that he is confident to be able to announce in Buenos Aires that the first TLDs are operational. David Maher had the difficult task of bringing the meeting back to order after lunch. In his keynote speech he addressed some legal issues related to the development of the Internet in 2013. I hope that the text of his presentation could be available. The last part of the meeting saw some changes in the agenda, combining the discussion on ATRT2 with the future development in Internet networks. This is the part of the meeting that I remember least, but if I am not mistaken there has been a discussion about accountability in terms of accountable to whom, quoting again the point made the previous day about ICANNs legitimacy coming from the consensus of the stakeholders, and therefore the ultimate accountability has to be to the stakeholders. Next time I promise I will take notes!!! Cheers, Roberto
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
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
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/>
Wolfgang Good evening; am so glad you have said this; as this was my understanding as well; think the dialogue was excellent, especially for its openness and frankness. Fadi found the debate challenging and stimulating; here is to Sofia! Best Nigel On 9/26/13 2:14 PM, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
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
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
Yes Roberto, this is the way forward. The ideas coming out from such brainstorming meetings are too valuable to remain in closed circles and we have to find a way to build bridges and to produce more input into the broader discussion by the ICANN community. But I do not think that this should be in a certain way "formalized". And I said in my previous mail, different people come with different conclusions from the inspiration they got from the Studienkreis meetings for the next steps. And this is good. LG w ________________________________ Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano Gesendet: Fr 27.09.2013 12:54 An: 'Discussion for At-Large Europe' Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] R: R: Studienkreis 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/> <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/> <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 <http://www.euralo.org/>
Good afternoon: May I make a few suggestions in this context: 1. The CH rules do not inhibit reporting in a not-for-attribution mode. 2. For future reference, note taking/reporting might be assigned and shared in advance. With one (WK/SH) final editor. 3. Many interested participants cannot make it to Studienkreis events. (I had not been since Barcelona, and made it to Pisa, almost by chance). A posted report would be valuable for the wider community. 4. I am getting the impression that certain sponsors - among others - are becoming a bit itchy about open-ended inconclusive IG discussions. Be that as it may, Studienkreis has more depth and substance than other fora. Think, "Hiding Lights … under Bushels." Since I have not been on this thread before, I take this opportunity to thank Wolfgang, Stefano and all their colleagues for a formative, contemporary experience in Pisa. Regards CW On 27 Sep 2013, at 12:54, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Roberto, thank you very much for this summary and the updates, read them with much interest! I understand the event was indeed interesting and captivating, and if Fadi changed his plans and stayed for one more day - that shows once again the importance of the issues addressed during it! With very best, Veronica On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
I made the mistake of not taking notes while the meeting was going on, so there are details that I do not remember, please feel free to add/correct what is needed.
This year, the format has been slightly different. With the exception of the first session, there have been no formal presentations, but rather short introductions by “resource persons” followed by wider discussion and Q/A among all participants.
Fadi Chehadé was supposed to attend only part of the first day, but changed his plans and remained for the second day as well, indicating that he was extremely satisfied about the discussion and the contribution by the participants. He also answered specific questions about the ICANN plans.
The first session was about the status of the Internet in Italy. Antonio Amendola (Senior Advisor to Deputy Minister for Economic Development) presented the apologies of the Deputy Minister, Antonio Catricalà, who has been unable to attend. Several personalities (see the attached programme) have presented different aspects of the Internet in Italy. I am not aware if the slides of the presentations are available for distribution.
Now the coordination on Internet matters is ensured by the Ministry of Economic Development, while in the past different ministries like for instance the Ministry of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Industry had partial responsibility on it.
The engagement of the Italian government on the digital agenda has been stressed by several participants. Fadi has reported about his meeting with the Deputy Minister Catricalà in Rome the day before, in which the potentially important role that Italy can play in the Internet governance matters has been discussed.
This session has been closed by the presentation of the .IT by the Director of the Institute of Informatics and Telematics, an institute depending from the Italian top research institution, the CNR (National Council of Research).
The second part of the afternoon was opened by Fadi, with a description of the challenges that ICANN is facing and the way he plans to address them. The key point that he has addressed is ICANN’s “equal multi-stakeholder model”, that has to guarantee that all stakeholder have not only “a voice”, but “equal voice” in the process.
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.
The first session of the second day addressed the issue of the introduction of new TLDs. The different “resource persons” brought the perspective of their stakeholder community: Registries, Registrars, Governments, IP, Business. Although I was there representing PIR, I realized that there were no other “resource persons” speaking for the user community, so I raised also the issue of the scarce information available to registrants, that are by and large unaware of the impact of the new TLDs.
The impact has been debated at length during the whole morning. It has been recognized that there will be a big change in the marketplace, not only because of the number of new TLDs, but also because the vertical integration blurs the distinction between registries and registrars. This will require a rethinking of the GNSO structure. The GNSO Review was planned for this year but is likely to be postponed until we can appreciate better the impact of the new TLDs in the Internet community and in the multi-stakeholder model.
Fadi commented that he changed the organizational structure of ICANN to address the complexity of this problem. To a specific question, he answered that he is confident to be able to announce in Buenos Aires that the first TLDs are operational.
David Maher had the difficult task of bringing the meeting back to order after lunch. In his keynote speech he addressed some legal issues related to the development of the Internet in 2013. I hope that the text of his presentation could be available.
The last part of the meeting saw some changes in the agenda, combining the discussion on ATRT2 with the future development in Internet networks. This is the part of the meeting that I remember least, but if I am not mistaken there has been a discussion about accountability in terms of “accountable to whom”, quoting again the point made the previous day about ICANN’s legitimacy coming from the consensus of the stakeholders, and therefore the ultimate accountability has to be to the stakeholders.
Next time I promise I will take notes!!!
Cheers,
Roberto
_______________________________________________ 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
-- *Veronica Cretu * * **President, "CMB" Training Center, **Republic of Moldova - www.cmb.md * *Member of the Steering Committee, * *Open Government Partnership (OGP);* *http://www.opengovpartnership.org/governance-staff-donors*<http://www.opengovpartnership.org/governance-staff-donors> *Member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group* *To the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)* *http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/* *Member of the Nominating Committee of ICANN* *(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering)* *www.icann.org* *Email: veronicacretu@gmail.com and/or veronica@cretu.md Skype: veronicacretu Phone: 373 067435000*
participants (6)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Nigel Hickson -
Roberto Gaetano -
Veronica Cretu -
William Drake