<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements
Hi,
As I have noted elsewhere that I think the CCWG Ig effort produced good
output. We have been lucky like that lately.
I am concerned that there is sometimes more speech about the bottom-up
model than actual adherence, I think the spin of the Strategic Panels
into a good thing that came from the community was deftly done. Soon we
may mostly believe that the community supported the Strategic Panels
before they started. The output from these panels is also pretty
decent, with lots of good approaches and tools worth checking out. We
are lucky, without having had community defined terms of reference for
these panels, they could have gone way off track. The one that seems
most problematic for people is the MSI, but even that is full of ideas
that can be considered.
As for the implementation of the ATRT2 recommendations, I am still
waiting to see what actually happens. A year in the ATRT2, going
through the details of the implementation of the ATRT1 recommendations,
was not encouraging. So I am waiting to see what actually happens.
avri
On 14-Mar-14 07:15, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> All,
>
> In the light of various discussions that have taken place on the Council
> list, including this, I thought it worthwhile to highlight the final
> submission to NetMundial.
>
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-from-the-icann-cross-community-working-group-on-internet-governance/295
>
> Including specifically, a reference to the Strategy Panels and ATRT (and
> the associated value of continuous improvement as we are striving to
> achieve within the policy management function) on condition that the
> general principles governing this type of work are understood and observed.
>
> The underlining below is my own emphasis.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
> 3.1 Evolution of ICANN: _principles by which ICANN should evolve_.
>
> ICANN plays a key role in keeping the Internet operational, by managing
> globally unique identifiers. The Internet is a trans-border and shared
> resource, and ICANN should contribute to its stability, robustness and
> interoperability, acting in a way that is consistent with the common
> good. This means that ICANN should carry out its stewardship role
> “caring more for the good management, use and evolution of this shared
> resource than for any individual stake in it” (CERF at al., 2014). ICANN
> is deeply connected to the web of relationships among institutions and
> actors that are part of the Internet governance ecosystem. The functions
> it performs are fundamental to the work carried out by other
> organizations and, ultimately, to keeping the Internet running. This is
> a great responsibility and ICANN is constantly striving to improve its
> governance model to better carry out its mission.
>
> _The recent launch of the Strategy Panels_ -- on ICANN Multistakeholder
> Innovation; on ICANN’s role in the Internet Organizations’ Ecosystem; on
> the Public Responsibility Framework; and on Identifier Technology
> Innovation -- _demonstrate these efforts, as do the accountability and
> transparency reviews_.
>
> ICANN seeks to keep evolving together with the Internet governance
> ecosystem. In order to ensure that this evolution happens in the best
> possible manner, some _general principles_ need to be observed:
>
> ● Evolution must be driven by the ICANN Community. ICANN has a unique
> multistakeholder model and a bottom-up process of decision-making. The
> evolution of the organization must be based on input from the community.
>
> ICANN’s board should perform its tasks in ongoing consultation with the
> community.
>
> ● Evolution should support the participation of a broader range of
> actors from all sectors, especially those from developing regions.
>
> ● Transparency and accountability are key to all actions by the ICANN
> Board, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community.
>
> ● Globalization plans for ICANN must be developed with stakeholder
> support and take into account impact on stakeholders.
>
> ● Negotiations with the US Department of Commerce on the future of ICANN
> should take into account input received from the community.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 06 March 2014 19:30
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] CCWG Ig and NetMundial statements
>
> OK,
>
> here’s an idea ― what if you and i depart from the Council list and have
> a conversation with Rafik and Olivier to at least let them know what
> we’re up to and get their reactions/course-corrections. we could
> forward this thread to them as a starting point, or come at it some
> other way if you’d prefer.
>
> then, at least the two of us and maybe the four of us could do some
> drafting and then return to this list with the result for
> refinement/approval and maybe they could do the same.
>
> we’ve only got a couple days before the deadline so this would have to
> be pretty crisp work, but it seems like we could that.
>
> does that work? (question aimed both at Avri and the rest of the Council)
>
> mikey
>
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> >
>
> > They are still the conveners.
>
> >
>
> > avri
>
> >
>
> > On 06-Mar-14 19:04, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> >> hi again,
>
> >>
>
> >> thanks Avri. before we dive into detailed word smithing, should we
> touch bases with the leaders of the CCWG and see if they’d like to join
> the effort? Olivier and Rafik were doing that way back when i was
> involved. are they still, or are there more/different people doing that?
>
> >>
>
> >> mikey
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Hi,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> While listing the effort as un-chartered may seem a bit strong to
>
> >>> some, 'Ad Hoc' is a venerable name and in fact is a name from our
>
> >>> history the "International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC or the Ad Hoc
>
> >>> Committee) in September 1996, to resolve DNS management issues" of
>
> >>> Green and White paper fame.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I do agree with your constraints.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> And yes, I am willing to work with you on finding an acceptable
> wording for the disclaimer, despite my concerns that no one will reading
> it and they will consider it a formal ICANN contribution.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> avri
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On 06-Mar-14 16:23, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> ouch…
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> no agreed-to charter? that’s troubling to me too, from a process
>
> >>>> standpoint.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> i’d be OK
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> - not extending a formal GNSO Council endorsement, either at all or
>
> >>>> until the SG/Constituencies have had a chance to weigh in
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> - putting a place for each AC/SO/SG/Constituency to endorse on the
>
> >>>> submission and make it clear that none have yet
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> - rewording the disclaimer a bit.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> i’m uncomfortable with a disclaimer that is as strong as what you
>
> >>>> are suggesting though. using the words “unchartered” and “ad-hoc”
>
> >>>> seems to err a bit too much the other way, almost invalidating all
>
> >>>> the work that has been done, which seems a shame given how hard
>
> >>>> people have worked.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> does that show you a way forward? want to take a crack at revised
>
> >>>> disclaimer language?
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> mikey
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Hi,
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> My problem is with a un-chartered ad-hoc group making a statement
>
> >>>>> in any name but the name of its members. Even if it contains a
>
> >>>>> weak and confusing disclaimer. They are not an ICANN cross
>
> >>>>> community working group by any definition of ICANN WG.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> If they were to call themselves the CC Ad-hoc group on Ig I would
>
> >>>>> be less insistent. But until they have managed to go through the
>
> >>>>> gruel of chartering I think we are messing with the processes we
>
> >>>>> are supposed to guard if we allow them to call themselves a CCWG
>
> >>>>> in a submission to an international audience.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> I know it may seem petty to some, but in these international fora,
>
> >>>>> something that comes with an official sounding name tends to be
>
> >>>>> treated as the official work, even if there is a disclaimer (who
>
> >>>>> reads those?)
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> And in the disclaimer I would request it be stronger and that it
>
> >>>>> indicate it is not a chartered group within ICANN.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> It is not our job to get into its content, unless perhaps
>
> >>>>> requested to do so by our Stakeholder groups, but we want to be
>
> >>>>> careful about even appearing to endorse it without having given
>
> >>>>> the group an official status.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> avri
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> On 05-Mar-14 20:39, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> >>>>>> hi Avri,
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> i’m just tuning back into this project. the draft i’m looking at
>
> >>>>>> is at
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BOpCmeE4YL3cat_6oN5RaNvDgvEYO
>
> >>>>>> -HS82gRzc_aRjo/mobilebasic?pli=1
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>> is that the best snapshot of the current state of affairs? if so,
>
> >>> it
>
> >>>>>> does have what looks like a pretty carefully-worded introduction
>
> >>>>>> that talks about the current status of ratification, and how the
>
> >>>>>> CCWG will notify NetMundial if such ratification takes place.
>
> >>>>>> here’s the language as it stands while i type this note:
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> "This contribution has been drafted using multi-stakeholder
>
> >>>>>> principles by the ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on
>
> >>>>>> Internet Governance, a group that comprises members of ICANN’s
>
> >>>>>> Supporting Organisations (SO), Advisory Committees (AC) and
>
> >>>>>> Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Stakeholder Groups
>
> >>>>>> (SG)[d]. This bottom-up process involved up to five people from
>
> >>>>>> each of these groups that comprise ICANN’s volunteer community.
>
> >>>>>> The concepts expressed in this paper are the result of discussion
>
> >>>>>> having taken place on the working group’s mailing list, the CCWG
>
> >>>>>> Wiki space created to support it and weekly conference calls
>
> >>>>>> throughout the months of January and February 2014.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> *"Due to time pressures, the proposals expressed in this
>
> >>>>>> contribution have not, so far, been ratified by the respective
>
> >>>>>> SOs, ACs and SGs of ICANN. Further communication will advise the
>
> >>>>>> NetMundial Organizing Committee if such ratification takes place
>
> >>>>>> before the meeting in Brazil."*
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> is there a change to that draft that would address the issue
>
> >>>>>> you’re raising?
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> mikey
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx
>
> >>>>>> <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> I am an observer in this group and see that it is working on a
>
> >>>>>>> statement.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Isn't this a statement that the various contributing SO/AC need
>
> >>>>>>> to review before it gets sent in? Or are we comfortable with
>
> >>>>>>> just letting them do their own thing and submit something that
>
> >>>>>>> is in some sense in our name as a CCWG, but not vetted.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> The group process troubles me as it wasn't even able to complete
>
> >>>>>>> a charter before starting to craft statements and has a
>
> >>>>>>> unbalanced membership. In fact it is much more a GNSO group,
>
> >>>>>>> though following no specific or guidelines, than a cross
>
> >>>>>>> community one at this point as there has not been wide cross
>
> >>>>>>> community buy-in yet.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Of course I have no issue with a bunch of people signing their
>
> >>>>>>> own names to anything they wish, but I would be against a group
>
> >>>>>>> sending something out in the name of the cross community that
>
> >>>>>>> had never even reviewed the WG's efforts.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> I do believe in the eventual utility of this group, but I would
>
> >>>>>>> like to see it organized on a firm ross community footing before
>
> >>>>>>> it starts making declarations to the world.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> avri
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
> <http://www.haven2.com>
>
> >>>>>> <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter,
>
> >>>>>> Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
> <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE:
>
> >>>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
> <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE:
>
> >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
> <http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
> LinkedIn, etc.)
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|