Questions
Netmundial is a meeting planned to deal with 2 main thematic axes: "Internet Principles" and
"Future evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem".
Internet Principles
The Netmundial meeting aims to identify a set of Universal principles to be promoted as a global
inspiration for the evolution of the Internet worldwide. Those principles should be viewed from
the perspective of the Internet as a platform for social, economic and human development and a
catalyzer of the exercise of human rights of all the people of the world.
Future evolution of the Internet Governance ecosystem
There is a broad view about the need of continue evolving the Multistakeholder Internet
Governance Ecosystem to energize discussion and to achieve greater consensus of the
community including a broader range of stakeholders and provide possible means to develop
solutions to specific problems faced by governments/stakeholders. There are several ongoing
initiatives trying to contribute with that objective. The meeting and related discussions will be an
important milestone in support of developing multistakeholder consensus on important
governance issues that could serve as valuable inputs to other forums. It could seek for more
clarification and pursue agreements for the way forward.
Proposed Table of Contents:
1. Introduction
Short intro with all the bells & whistles thanking the conference organisers for accepting the contribution.
Also -- an explanation that this contribution was written in a completely bottom-up multi-stakeholder way involving all of ICANN's communities.
2. Definitions of the terms we are using
In this section we provide definitions of terms we are going to use in our arguments, so as to avoid any ambiguity which would bring a frivolous discussion in Brazil or generate a misunderstanding which could be used by people wishing to attack the accuracy of our submission
3. Arguments (place-holder name, please suggest another name than this)
These are the explanation of the point of view of this community. Please draft those as punchy and concise as possible.
At the moment we are all working in small groups in order to draft those arguments. You'll notice that some are technical in nature (the single root) whilst others are more "internet governance".
I suggest two sub-sections:
3.1 Technical arguments
3.2 Internet Governance arguments
4. Roadmap Contributions
This is the part of the Brazil meeting which wishes to design a Roadmap for further evolution of the Internet Governance ecosystem. Whilst in sections 2 and 3, we are merely stating fact which I believe we can all agree to pretty quickly (since it is drafted by the best experts in ICANN: you), Section 4 is going to be a much harder piece of work because:
a. we might not agree with each other
b. we have so little time to discuss it
So let me fire the first shot: what does one mean by a Roadmap? Well, you can bet ICANN's going to be in the firing line for this and Internationalisation of ICANN, including the IANA function is going to be a really hot topic in Brazil. You can already see the European Commission warming up on this. You know Brazil's also hot. And that's nothing compared with some other contributions which we've heard at WCIT over a year ago.
SO -- what's this community ready to propose in the Roadmap?
5. Conclusions
A very short conclusion // I would shy away from repeating the content in the body of the contribution but would make use of this paragraph to emphasize our overall message. I'd suggest something very punchy here.
Definitions
Instructions
We've seen that definitions are really important so we are all on the same page, and so that anyone reading the input from this WG will also be clear as to what the contribution alludes to.
Please edit this page or comment about this page both on the WIKI or on the mailing list (and staff will update the wiki) with your input. Please take responsibility to define a term/word.
| Defined Word | Contributor | Definition |
|---|---|---|
ICANN | Michele Neylon | - the corporation? (as Filiz pointed out, it can be sued and it can also enter into contracts) - ICANN Staff? - ICANN the Community?
|
| ICANN | Ariel Manoff | I believe that the best definition for ICANN is "organization"- This word is used to designate complex entities that include multiple aspects We can say an "International Organization". |
| ICANN | Marilyn Cade | ICANN must be the community. NOT staff. NOT Board. Community. |
| ICANN | Ariel Manoff | This is a definition of community
I believe that ICANN includes the government |
| ICANN | Wolf-Ulrich Knoben | I understand ICANN – as its name is saying – being a “corporation” supporting the global community in general and its stakeholders in particular. It is the stakeholders’ operational (or executive?) arm based on board decisions. |
| ICANN | Michele Neylon | Agree with Marilyn |
| The Multi-Stakeholder Model | Leon Sanchez | The Multi-Stakeholder Model, as opposed to the Multi-Lateral Model, is that where multiple interested parties have a voice and may influence the decision making process by means of different procedures. The main difference between the Multi-Stakeholder and the Multi-Lateral Model seems to be the openness of the former in comparison to the latter as in the MSHM any individual may raise his/her voice regardless of being represented by any other person. |
| The Multi-Lateral Model | Leon Sanchez | The Multi-Lateral Model is a decision making process in which the parties are usually governments or entities that belong to a closed community characterized for having the voice of their members spoken by a representative of each entity and in which no individual member, either belonging to the community or outside of it, may raise his/her voice to direct the decision making process in case of disagreement with his/her representative. |
| Glossary of Terms we'll use in our contribution | Volunteer needed | |
Arguments
Instructions
In this section, we are looking for volunteers to draft a short but concise paragraph to argue the advantage of a process that is directly or indirectly related to ICANN. Note that the paragraph should be drafted simply following:
- What it is
- What is does
- Why is it better this way?
This section will form the body of our report.
Please suggest and add more arguments too!!
| Argument | Contributor | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Why a single Root | Michele Neylon | |
| The Multi-Stakeholder Model in ICANN | Volunteer needed | Leon Sanchez, Sarah Falvey, Aparna Sridhar, Joana, Philip Corwin, Filiz Yilmaz, Hector Ariel Manoff, David Fares, Kiran Malancharuvil, Andrii Paziuk, Kiran Malancharuvil |
| Critical Internet Resources (CIR) | Volunteer needed | Filiz Yilmaz, Michele Neylon |
| Bottom up vs. Top down Internet Governance | Volunteer needed | Marilyn Cade, Evan Leibovitch, Cintra Sooknanan |
| Definition: Multi-Lateral model | Volunteer needed | Leon Sanchez, Hector Ariel Manoff |
| DNSSEC and trust in the DNS | Volunteer needed | Michele Neylon, Ken Stubbs, James Bladel, David Maher, Tracy Hackshaw |
| Trusted Community Representatives for DNSSEC Key signing | Volunteer needed | Michele Neylon |
| ICANN definition | Volunteer needed | |
The evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem and ICANN ROle
|
John Curran Draft
| Fatima Cambronero, Marilia Maciel, Hago Dafalla, Marilyn Cade, Michele Neylon, Avri Doria, Andrii Paziuk, Tracy Hackshaw, Avri Doria
|
Attachments:
These documents are working documents
- 7 Feb Tasks v0.1.doc - this is the assignment of tasks to sub-WGs
- 7 Feb Goals and Objectives v0.1.doc - listing of the WG's objectives and goals
