ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] Re: CWG-Internet Governance and Next Steps

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Re: CWG-Internet Governance and Next Steps
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:07:34 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=xTwaQNlksq9R3k+YzkZ6BCqllwUN+XOvSQPO6U8+wf4=; b=2Sky3x4c9zmRmMJ56E8GwxPQo0WZVZG6yo0l2VajtiIK8sHl4Y2D4aoWOu9b6BOsPtM8+/U7+DoZTKAJQxRHCvtb3LV5yXDrnwgFS4qjHxUM9zvO/y+FzEOrxeqrNaNaQ/c3efHitaNbYcNM1aSIq7CvV+Iy2NJjQ1rcV7cOHbU=
  • In-reply-to: <AFF03190-85D9-465E-9C44-FE68B18FFAA0@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <AFF03190-85D9-465E-9C44-FE68B18FFAA0@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
  • Thread-index: AQHSDfTPPoa5Sfg97Ei//7pTmd8CsqCNZE8A
  • Thread-topic: CWG-Internet Governance and Next Steps
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910

Council Colleagues –

By way of a follow up:  Given that there were no additional requests or 
responses on this topic, it is not included on the agenda for our call on 29 
SEP (this Thursday).

We will have one additional opportunity to discuss and/or request information 
from the CCWG-IG, which is during our 13 OCT call.  Following that, we will 
then consider a motion on the GNSO renewal of the CCWG-IG Charter during our 
meeting in Hyderabad.

Thank you--


From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 14:26
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: CWG-Internet Governance and Next Steps

Dear Councilors-

Unfortunately, we ran short of time during the last Council meeting to discuss 
agenda item 7 (Council Discussion – Next Steps for the Cross Community Working 
Group on Internet Governance).  Some Councilors questioned why this item was on 
the agenda at all.  Therefore, I thought it might be helpful to explain why the 
leadership added this topic to the agenda and our expected next steps:

* As you may recall, the CWG-IG provided a status update that was reviewed and 
discussed by the Council in Helsinki (see 
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf). Note 
that the CWG-IG charter foresees that ‘The Co-Chairs of the WG shall update the 
participating SO’s and AC’s at least monthly on the activities of the WG’ and 
‘The Co-Chairs will be responsible for maintaining and updating the work plan 
and schedule and for informing the Chairs of the participating SO’s and AC’s of 
changes made to the work plan and schedule’.

*  In light of the work of the CWG Principles, which foresees CWGs having a 
clear start and end, many have questioned whether a CWG is the appropriate 
vehicle for dealing with IG issues, as the current objective of the CWG (as 
described in its charter) is ‘to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the 
participation of the ICANN community in discussions and processes pertaining to 
Internet Governance’.

*  The CWG-IG Charter foresees that ‘At each ICANN Annual General Meeting, 
starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be reviewed by the 
participating SO’s and AC’s to determine whether the WG should continue, or, 
close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG will 
continue if at least two of the participating SO’s or AC’s extend the Charter 
of the WG and notify the other participating SO’s and AC’s accordingly one 
month after the annual review date’.

*  The GNSO is therefore expected to review and decide by ICANN57 whether to 
extend its support for the charter of the CWG-IG.

*  In order to be in a position to make this determination by ICANN57, this 
item was added to the Council agenda to obtain feedback from Councilors/SG/Cs 
on what further information, if any, is needed from the CWG-IG.
I propose that this final bullet point become the focal point of our 
discussions (list or teleconference) on this topic.

If Councilors are satisfied that they, along with the leadership of their 
respective SGs and Cs, are capable of deciding on continued GNSO support for 
the CCWG-IG charter by ICANN57, then it may not be necessary to revisit this 
topic again until our sessions in Hyderabad.  If not, we should include this 
discussion on our next Council agenda to ensure that all open questions are 



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