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
|