ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues


hi Amr,

i've done as you suggest and got a bite.  :-)

thanks,

mikey


On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.)
>> 
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>