Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
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
|