ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues

  • To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:45:36 -0600
  • In-reply-to: <004001ceec25$56592170$030b6450$@afilias.info>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <4kukngi4mjie4bpig6v0xvnb.1385599944278@email.android.com> <004001ceec25$56592170$030b6450$@afilias.info>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

hi all,

this is helpful discussion indeed.  i'm getting ready to forward this thread to 
several people and think it would be helpful to have a few things included.  
can somebody chime in with:

- a link to the wiki page that Amr mentioned

- a pointer to any kind of a charter that the group has started to work on

- suggestions as to the best way for interested SG/C's to indicate their 
interest in participating

i think part of what's going on is that a) things are moving fast and b) the 
rules of the road aren't clear yet.  i don't feel that i'm qualified to 
participate in the "content" part of the "get ready for Brazil" effort, but i 
would be happy to assist with slapping together a quick charter if Rafik, 
Olivier and others would find that helpful.  here's a link to a series of 
chartering questions i've cobbled together over the years that might be useful 
in crafting a charter, whether i'm involved in that or not (many of you have 
seen these before).

        
http://www.haven2.com/index.php/tools/mikeys-pretty-good-project-definition-worksheet

thanks all, 

mikey


On Nov 28, 2013, at 4:33 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Amr & Avri,
>  
> I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see 
> the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt 
> to jump on the train before it leaves the station.
>  
> Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or 
> permission to participate.  Where the Council MAY be able to help is 
> assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups 
> are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background.  This thread 
> seems to have been helpful in that context.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: avri [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52
> To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
>  
> Hi 
>  
> I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. 
> So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and 
> users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at 
> the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it.
>  
> In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would 
> jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all 
> other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the 
> offer and gotten the ball rolling.
>  
> Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating 
> this effort.  I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort 
> if interested.  I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from 
> this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are 
> so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I 
> find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.
>  
> I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response 
> to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a 
> cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
>  
> avri
>  
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) 
> To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Cc: "<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,"<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues 
> 
> 
> Jonathan and John,
>  
> The NCSG/ALAC meeting where this idea was proposed started immediately 
> following the Council wrap-up session. It was not, to my knowledge, an 
> initiative born from any invitation of any kind nor imposed by anyone from 
> the “top” or elsewhere. It was more of a discussion amongst civil society 
> actors within the ICANN community to coordinate efforts to ensure NCSG/ALAC 
> representation in whatever process leads up to the Brazil summit (or whatever 
> they’ve decided to call it) in April 2014. In fact, one of the outputs of the 
> meeting was a suggestion to draft a joint NCSG/ALAC letter addressed to Fadi 
> expressing a desire to engage in the process.
>  
> During the meeting, it was also decided that inviting the broader ICANN 
> community to the discussion using a Wiki as a platform for cross community 
> input on the topic was a good idea. The term “Cross-Community Working Group” 
> was used in an email message on an NCSG list, but I am not aware of any 
> actual WG or drafting team in the pipeline. Just a Wiki-based cross community 
> discussion platform. If this changes, if I learn something I do not know now, 
> or when the Wiki goes online, I’ll be sure to send a note to all of you on 
> the Council list to make sure you’re all informed.
>  
> Sound good?
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Amr
>  
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM, John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
>  
> The work of the drafting team is aimed at creating an aligned PDP and 
> reflects a bottom-up sensibility
>  
> This CWG on Internet Governance is more politics than policy and has been 
> imposed from the top,
>  
> What I would like to know is who issued the invitation to the ALAC and NCSG, 
> what was the rationale and why the NCSG accepted without consultation with 
> the broader GNSO of which they are a part?
>  
> Were other ACs and SOs invited?  Did they decline?
>  
> I am aware that I am veering toward paranoia, but it's not inappropriate if 
> they are really out to get you.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Berard
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> At the Council meeting wrap-up in Buenos Aires, we talked about GNSO 
> participation in the CWG on internet governance and the Council and/or GNSO 
> Council chair’s otential role.
>  
> At the time, I don’t believe we were aware of the proposed role of ALAC / 
> NCSG as co-ordinators. 
>  
> I think (from a Council perspective) we should probably now await the call 
> for further participation and respond to that, but I am open to any other 
> suggestions.
>  
> We could offer the CWG principles as they currently stand?
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>