[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG

Wed Jan 9 07:03:15 UTC 2019

While I support the intent of #4, I am inclined to agree with SeB and Joanna - and I therefore think that At-Large’s and ALAC's scarce resources are better spent elsewhere (i.e. on concrete ICANN related policy substance).

Personally I am fine with #6. But if anything is to be set up in order to continue discussions, I think it should be community wide + endorsed and then I’d go for either #1 or #2 as I am not sure what the difference is between the two…

thanks
Bastiaan

> On 8 Jan 2019, at 12:45, Maureen Hilyard <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> 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 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