[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG

[Kan Kaili]

Thank you, Maureen, for reaching out on this issue.

I also strongly support option #4 because of the following reasons:

-- Currently ICANN is focused on domain name issues.  However, as this is a rapidly shrinking industry, the future of ICAAN is bleak.  On the other hand, Internet governance is an ever-lasting issue and is gaining more and more importance.  Thus, even for ICANN's own stake, it is vital to expand into this area.

-- ALAC is rooted on ALSes.  However, as domain name is getting less and less important to end-users, it will be harder and harder to get ALSes' participation.  As a matter of fact, more and more end-users are less concerned about domain names but on other Internet governance issues.  Thus, narrowly focusing on domain names would even make our current ALSes hard to survive, while engaging in broader IG issues will bring more particiaption and broader support for our ALSes.

-- While contracted parties are less concerened of IG issues, ALAC representing end-users playing a leading role on these will enhance our position within ICANN.

Thus, I not only support option #4, but also believe that ALAC should make this a central role in the long run.

Thank you.

Kaili



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Maureen Hilyard 
  To: ALAC-members at icann.org ; alt-plus at icann.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 5:57 AM
  Subject: [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG


  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20190109/34a842b3/attachment-0001.html>