[EURO-Discuss] R: R: Studienkreis

Christopher Wilkinson cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
Fri Sep 27 11:13:43 UTC 2013


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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-
>> bounces at 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 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 



More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list