[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG

[Sebastien Bachollet]

Hello,
Happy new year to all.

It seems that ICANN (all its parties) has difficulty to find a collective way to still do some work or have some exchanges about IG.
If after 8 months of a proposed charter there is no decision by any group it is maybe we don’t have yet the right way to go.

May I suggest another way to go?
If each group (SO - AC - Constituencies - RALOs - Board - …) willing to discuss/work/look after… IG create a IG Engagement Group (IGEG).
All the IGSPs gather under a Coordination IG Engagement Groups (CIGEG). They used the proposed charter for the CCEGIG as a basis to define the charter of the Coordination setup.
My 2 cts
SeB

> Le 8 janv. 2019 à 10:08, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> Hello Maureen,
> 
> I require some clarification; if option 4 is to be implemented as suggested it implies a CCWG will be required hence the CCEGIG charter will take effect?
> 
> Am okay with option 4 but I am not sure I understand how other SO/AC can formerly participate without it being a CCWG.
> 
> My first preference though is option 6; we should just maintain our existing outreach efforts through our participation at igf.
> 
> Regards
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 10:57 PM 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 <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/20190108/1f7890fa/attachment.html>