Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jonathan,

Jumping in late to this as your message pretty much covers it; but just to
confirm the invitation that ncsg / alac responded to by coordinating was
indeed the verbal invitation to the whole community Fadi issued at the 0700
meeting on Thursday in BA which I think staff have followed up on in their
note to so/ac's, triggering John's concerns.

Let's hang on to some of our Friday session's candour and good will and not
jump straight to paranoia..!

Maria


On 28 November 2013 14:02, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Personally, I appreciate your engagement and input Chuck.
>
> My recollection is that Fadi suggested a CWG at the 07h00 Wednesday 
> 20thimpromptu 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 <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<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" <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
>
>
>