[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG

[Maureen Hilyard]

Many thanks to all

Im sure that Olivier has been following this and is getting an idea of the
ALAC and ALT+ views on this topic for his consideration but I will also
send him a formal response as well

M

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:03 PM Bastiaan Goslings <
bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20190109/ad8c51d4/attachment-0001.html>