Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mikey,

The Wiki page hasn’t been set up yet, but should be soon. I also recommend you 
contact Rafik and Olivier directly and volunteer to participate in drafting a 
charter. That would be great of you, and I can’t see why they wouldn’t think so 
too. I’m sure it’ll be a better charter if you’re involved.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.)
>