Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Glad to hear it Mikey. ;-)

Amr

On Nov 28, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.)
>