[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] CCEGIG
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Fri Jan 11 14:03:51 UTC 2019
FYI bearing in mind that Leon is the Chair of the Board Working Group on
Internet Governance, it might be a good idea for Maureen to speak to him
informally.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 11/01/2019 14:41, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
> Yes Javier, for us all.
>
> But I think that as Cheryl and Alan suggest, we do need to impress on
> the Board that this is something that needs to be supported at a high
> level. They can't just drop it when it is in their Strategic Plan (as
> I have emphasised) to contribute to and support "a global and reliable
> Internet governance ecosystem".
>
> Ok, so the consensus is to proceed with a letter to the Board from the
> ALAC suggesting a way for moving forward with this issue? Perhaps
> Cheryl, Alan, Olivier, myself and Heidi can get our heads together to
> draft something for the ALAC+ team to consider for presentation to the
> Board. We can only but try.
>
> Maureen
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:42 AM Javier Rua <javrua at gmail.com
> <mailto:javrua at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> This defines makes me rethink things a bit...
>
> Javier Rúa-Jovet
>
> +1-787-396-6511
> twitter: @javrua
> skype: javier.rua1
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 12:50 AM, Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>
>> I too have been silent, but will add my 2 cents now.
>>
>> I agree that 4 is a really bad idea, but perhaps for other
>> reasons than resources. It presumes that we will actually attract
>> others from outside of At-Large and I think that this is a
>> self-aggrandizing pipe-dream. Other than a few enlightened soles
>> who will go wherever they need to talk about IG issues, it will
>> be ignored or worse scorned by others.
>>
>> I would not take action 5 as written, but would initiate informal
>> talks with those on the Board (and ICANN staff) on how we may
>> effect a good outcome given the politics involved. I have no idea
>> what form that may take, but I suspect not a formal Board WG. Or
>> the Board may say (as it sometimes does these days) that the
>> community has spoken and clearly does not want such a group to
>> exist. In which case it is dead. But I think that we should try.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10/01/2019 03:00 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
>>> I have held off on commenting until now, but my personal view is
>>> that 4 would end up being being worse than useless, in the long
>>> run, and fail to meet important objectives as Bartlett pointed
>>> out and also be an unreasonable drain on ALAC resourcing...
>>> Sadly... So end up being the same outcome as 6. In the absence
>>> of a cross or pan Community activity being 'run/Chartered' by
>>> several parts of the ICANN Community (and it's associated
>>> resourcing) perhaps regrouping and pressuring of ICANN to create
>>> an AdHoc Group if not a more Formal Community one is well worth
>>> a try though...
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 20:17 Bastiaan Goslings
>>> <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ALT-Plus mailing list
>>> ALT-Plus at icann.org <mailto:ALT-Plus at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ALT-Plus mailing list
>>> ALT-Plus at icann.org <mailto:ALT-Plus at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALT-Plus mailing list
> ALT-Plus at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20190111/d2aea991/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the ALT-Plus
mailing list