RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, I appreciate your engagement and input Chuck.

My recollection is that Fadi suggested a CWG at the 07h00 Wednesday 20th 
impromptu meeting to discuss 3 topics.  At the time it was not clear whether 1, 
2 or 3 CWGs were being suggested.

He indicated at the time that he was in some way now handing this over to the 
community and hence the opportunity for 1 or more CWGs.

 

http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-multistakeholder-community

 

For information, I just posted this to the SO/AC discussion list in response to 
a posting from Bill:

 

---

 

Bill,

 

Thanks for that information / input.  A couple of points to add:

 

1.       Some form of listserv does seem to make sense.  The following list has 
been recently mentioned in GNSO Council discussion on the topic:
https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
Would this be the one to use or is another required?

2.       The Registries SG mailing list had some discussion about a possible 
3rd coordinator with more of a commercial / business background.
This was not specifically suggested to be someone with a registries / 
contracted parties link.

3.       Under the management of the GNSO Council, the GNSO did undertake 
initial work on guidelines for CWGs, which was then modified with input from 
the ccNSO (all SO & ACs were invited to provide input).
The idea was that these could potentially be further developed in conjunction 
with other SO & ACs in order to provide a framework for future collaboration 
under within ICANN in CWGs. 
The status quo of this effort is discussed in a recent staff paper and it may 
be that an approach along the lines described is something that other SO & ACs 
feel we can work with here?

 

Rafik added on cc.  I understand Olivier is already on this list.

 

Jonathan

 

 

From: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 28 November 2013 13:36
To: Olof Nordling
Cc: David Olive; soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx; Sally Costerton; Theresa Swinehart; 
Duncan Burns; Tracy Hackshaw (Tracy.Hackshaw@xxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG

 

Hi

 

As concerns were raised on the Council list, just to be clear on the process: 
NCSG & ALAC met and talked about cooperation as we always do, and as we both 
care about the issue and see the need to move it forward we decided to start a 
dialogue with our chairs as facilitators.  If people want to simply join that 
great we’ll grow it into a CWG, if there’s a preference to organize the CWG 
another way we can do that…the initiative was not in any way an effort to 
‘control’ the process and its agenda, but simply to get things started.

 

Perhaps a listserv is in order?

 

Best,

 

Bill

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 28 November 2013 13:49
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'avri'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues

 

If all of you will accept some thoughts on this from a Temporary Alternate, 
here are some suggestions I would like to make.

 

I don’t think it is wise for us to think of this as an NCSG/ALAC initiative 
unless they suggest otherwise.  I believe it is a Fadi initiative that the NCSG 
and ALAC picked up on and many of the rest of us didn’t; I am not sure why that 
is the case but it would be interesting to find out.  I would be curious to 
know what session it was when Fadi suggested this.  At ICANN in-person meetings 
there are always multiple conflicts so we don’t all attend the same sessions.

 

Going forward, I think it would be best if we joined in and try to make it a 
productive effort rather than spending time worrying about how it came about.

 

In my opinion, all of this illustrates the problem of staff initiating efforts 
in a public setting without involving existing mechanisms and processes.  It 
results in confusion and feelings of disenfranchisement by some members of the 
community.  This doesn’t mean that initiating things like this needs to take a 
lot of time, but I believe that before doing so in a public session, it would 
help a lot if staff would talk to the leaders of the various SOs and ACs so 
they are not blindsided and even better so that a simple plan can be devised 
for a quick rollout, bottom-up instead of top-down.  Moreover, bottom-up 
doesn’t have to mean slow if existing leadership structures are used.

 

I think Avri describe this very well in saying “. . 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.”

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:34 AM
To: 'avri'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues

 

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" < 
<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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