[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG

[Maureen Hilyard]

We have discussed this and the found that the Board would be reluctant to
make a decision that should really be made bottom-up. So that option sort
of didn't go very far in our earlier discussions either.



On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM Bartlett Morgan <me at bartlettmorgan.com>
wrote:

> My inclination is to 5 - the Board.
> Somehow bringing it “in house” into the ALAC doesn’t seem to match the
> (seeming) ambitions or focus of the thing.
>
> -
> Bart
> Sent from my mobile
>
> On 7 Jan 2019, at 20:24, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> 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>
> 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
>> 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
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-Members mailing list
> ALAC-Members at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20190107/31c77a12/attachment.html>