[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue Jan 8 14:20:51 UTC 2019
Yes, #4 would be a good option. I think your statement "how could there
not be an IG working group somewhere in ICANN" is a good point. Not
having anything would leave vacuum that someone else would quickly fill.
Marita
On 1/8/2019 7:30 AM, Javier Rua wrote:
> I support that, Madame Chair.
>
> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>
> +1-787-396-6511
> twitter: @javrua
> skype: javier.rua1
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2019, at 7:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
> <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> I am opting for #4 firstly because, as mentioned by Olivier, we are
>> the only chartering organisation left holding the IG baby.
>>
>> While the Board (#5) would be reluctant to actually set up a working
>> group and invite members to join - they would be obliged to support
>> whoever did set one up because IG features in a major objective of
>> the ICANN strategic plan 2016-2020.
>>
>> /4.3 Participate in the evolution of a global, trusted, inclusive
>> multistakeholder Internet governance ecosystem that addresses
>> Internet issues./
>> /Expected outcomes/
>> /
>> ICANN is an effective contributor and supporter of a global and /
>> reliable Internet governance ecosystem and that addresses
>> //
>> technical and non-technical issues for the global community.
>> /
>> - Recognition by decision-makers across stakeholder sectors of the /
>> multistakeholder approach to govern the Internet.
>> /
>> - Demonstrate leadership by implementing best practices in /
>> multistakeholder mechanisms within the distributed Internet
>> //
>> governance ecosystem while encouraging all stakeholders to
>> //
>> implement the principles endorsed at NETmundial.
>> /
>> - Proliferation of national and regional multistakeholder Internet /
>> governance structures (p22)
>> /
>> /
>>
>> *How could there not be an IG WG somewhere in ICANN? (#6)* The thing
>> is surprisingly, that although the SOs pulled out of the CCWG/CCEG,
>> there was a major contingent of them at the Paris IGF.
>>
>> So if there is going to be one, it would probably be more relevant
>> that At-Large coordinates it and bases the charter on (as Sebastian
>> suggests) on that which was proposed for the CCEGIG.
>>
>> My few additional cents...
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:08 PM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC-Members mailing list
>> ALAC-Members at icann.org <mailto: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/20190108/1428b603/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the ALT-Plus
mailing list