[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Attached. First shared with SO/AC mailing list on 30 April 2018.

On 08/01/2019 01:24, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
> No But I am sure that Olivier can..
>
> Maureen
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello Maureen,
>
>     Can you share reference to the CCEGIG charter?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Sent from my mobile
>     Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>     On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 22:57 Maureen Hilyard
>     <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         Dear ALAC and ALT+ members
>
>         You may remember, way back in 2018, Olivier raised the issue
>         of the ccNSO and GNSO pulling out of the CCWG IG so that we
>         were the remaining charter group of what was to be renamed the
>         Cross Community Engagement Group on Internet Governance. (CCEGIG).
>
>         Olivier is still awaiting what our decision is, in relation to
>         the options that he gave (but with no priority or
>         recommendation)..
>
>         1. The ALAC proposes to all SOs and ACs except the ccNSO, that
>         they join a CCEG IG according to the proposed CCEG Charter
>         2. The ALAC proposes to the GNSO Constituencies in both houses
>         as well as any other SOs and ACs, except the ccNSO, that they
>         join a CCEG IG according to the proposed CCEG Charter
>         3. The ALAC proposes to the GNSO Constituencies in both
>         houses, that they join a CCEG IG according to the proposed
>         CCEG Charter, bearing in mind the original creation of the
>         CCWG was between the ALAC and the NCSG.
>         4. The ALAC creates a working group on Internet Governance
>         which is open to all, thus being able to accept members of
>         other SOs/ACs/Cs, including GAC and SSAC members
>         5. The ALAC asks the Board to create a working group on
>         Internet Governance and asks to be part of that working group
>         6. The ALAC does nothing and thus the topic of community-led
>         ICANN-wide Internet Governance  discussion ends.
>
>         I have mentioned to Olivier that At-Large already has a very
>         strong alliance with things IG, and it would not be out of
>         line for us to establish an IG Engagement Group to discuss IG
>         issues as they relate to ICANN.  Then it would be easy for
>         other constituencies to easily slip into the group because its
>         charter (developed by us would encourage this)> 
>
>         For me personally I would select #4. But I am happy to hear
>         others' views on any of the other options that they see as
>         more practical for us to support.
>
>         I know that Olivier has already been waiting over a year now
>         for a response from us, but I'd like an answer to be returned
>         to him as soon as possible. By 11 Jan?
>
>         Regards
>         Maureen
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         ALAC-Members mailing list
>         ALAC-Members at icann.org <mailto:ALAC-Members at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20190108/db0d8207/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Cross-community Engagement Group on IG - Clean Version.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 901587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20190108/db0d8207/Cross-communityEngagementGrouponIG-CleanVersion-0001.pdf>