[council] FW: Request to no-objection on interpretation charter CCWG IG

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

Please see below from Rafik. I expect that this is something we can deal with 
at our enxt GNSO Council meeting.

 

Any concerns?

 

Jonathan

 

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 27 April 2015 13:35
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: David Cake; Volker Greimann; Glen de Saint Géry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Subject: Request to no-objection on interpretation charter CCWG IG

 

Dear Jonathan,

In order to complete the transition of the Cross-Community Working Group 
Internet Governance (CCWG IG) to a fully chartered CCWG, we seek your non 
objection on an interpretation of the section on observers in the CCWG IG 
charter to mean: "In addition, the CCWG-IG will be open to any interested 
person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, 
from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-IG, or may be 
self-appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and attend 
all CCWG-IG meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should there be 
a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision will 
be limited to CCWG-IG members appointed by the chartering organizations.”

If you agree, could be so kind to convey the “no-objection” to us? 

Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ALAC), and Rafik Dammak (GNSO)

Co-Chairs of the CCWG IG

 

Introduction and background. 

At its meeting in Singapore the cross-community working group on Internet 
Governance (CCWG IG), discussed how to complete its transition to the formally 
chartered CCWG as envisioned by the chartering organizations. The main issue 
that needs to be addressed is dealing with the current status of (former) 
participants, taking into account the rules of the charter.

 

As you will recall the CCWG IG was originally an informal group, with no 
charter. Participants of the original group felt it necessary to provide a 
solid basis for its work and hence developed a charter, which was proposed to 
all supporting organizations and advisory committees for adoption.   As you 
will know the charter was adopted by the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC in the 
September/ November 2014 timeframe. Following adoption of the charter some of 
the chartering organizations appointed members and a co-chair to the CCWG IG as 
envisioned in the charter, and one (SSAC) although adopting the charter, 
reclined from its ability to appoint members. The newly appointed SO and AC 
members included some of the participants of the former, informal Internet 
Governance community group. To date the SO and AC have not appointed observers 
as envisioned in the charter. As a result participants now include newly 
appointed members, and people who have signed-up as participants in the 
(former) informal Internet Governance group I.e. before it was chartered (see:  
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275> 
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275).   

 

In order to avoid to have to go through a formal charter changing process, we 
seek to achieve an effective change through an agreed interpretation of the 
term ”observers” in the charter.

Current definition of membership. According to the current charter of the CCWG 
IG membership of the CCWG includes members (appointed by the chartering 
organisations, according to their own rules and procedures), observers and 
experts. In this context observers are described as people who:"In addition, 
all SOs and ACs may appoint Observers if permitted by and in accordance with 
their own rules and procedures. Such Observers are entitled to participate in 
WG deliberations on an equal footing with the Members except for formal voting, 
when called for by the Co-Chairs of the WG. Voting is limited only to Members. 
The number of Observers appointed by each SO and AC shall not exceed the number 
of Members appointed by that SO or AC."

The proposed changes.

In order to complete the transition to the fully chartered CCWG IG, we seek 
your non objection on an interpretation of the section on observers in the CCWG 
IG charter to mean: "In addition, the CCWG-IG will be open to any interested 
person as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, 
from a stakeholder group not represented in the CCWG-IG, or may be 
self-appointed. Participants will be able to actively participate in and attend 
all CCWG-IG meetings, work groups and sub-work groups. However, should there be 
a need for a consensus call or decision, such consensus call or decision will 
be limited to CCWG-IG members appointed by the chartering organizations” (which 
is similar to the language in the charter of the CCWG- Accountability) 

 

The major changes would be: 

·         No limit on the number of observers/ participants;

·         Self-nomination as participant versus appointment by a chartering 
organization, allowing for broader participation

The benefits of this interpretation would be normalization of membership rules 
across the CCWG and CWGs (best practice) and providing clarity around “legacy” 
participation.

Before the CCWG IG was chartered, community members participated and 
participate in the activities of this particular CCWG (“legacy” participants). 
To date these participants have not been appointed by a SO or AC. Experience 
with the CWG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability has shown that broad 
participation, with additional obligations and privileges for appointed 
members, provides a fair and workable basis and at the same time increases 
transparency, interest in the work, and active participation of the broader 
community and community members.

 

The drafting team introduced a restrictive membership and participation rule at 
the time of drafting in response to risks of a WG without charter, un-clarity 
of representation on the WG and interest WG represents in its public 
statements.  However, with charter in place resulting in a clearly defined role 
for chartering organizations and members, and the positive experience to date 
with participants on the CWG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability, a more 
liberal interpretation of the “observer” rule as described above is advised, as 
it would increase the value to the community and legitimacy of the CCWG IG.