<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
- To: "jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'avri'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:04:41 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- In-reply-to: <010f01ceec42$8c79c3f0$a56d4bd0$@afilias.info>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <4kukngi4mjie4bpig6v0xvnb.1385599944278@email.android.com> <004001ceec25$56592170$030b6450$@afilias.info> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4929D97F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <010f01ceec42$8c79c3f0$a56d4bd0$@afilias.info>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQHO69QZHJtK71ugS/+AOky1Wp5hxpo6xtSA///eAKCAAFxqAP//rIRw
- Thread-topic: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Thanks Jonathan. As you might guess, I did not attend that meeting.
Chuck
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'avri'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
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>
[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<mailto:soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx>;
Sally Costerton; Theresa Swinehart; Duncan Burns; Tracy Hackshaw
(Tracy.Hackshaw@xxxxxx<mailto: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]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: 28 November 2013 13:49
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'avri';
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:34 AM
To: 'avri'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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]<mailto:[mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]>
Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52
To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00)
To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>"
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>,"<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|