[EURO-Discuss] R: Studienkreis

[Nigel Hickson]

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 at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-
>> bounces at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss/attachments/20130926/fd4d4ed7/smime.p7s>