[cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Wed Mar 18 14:04:15 UTC 2015

So what are the next steps?

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

-----Original Message-----
From: cc-humanrights-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cc-humanrights-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:29 AM
To: Amr Elsadr
Cc: cc-humanrights at icann.org
Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps

Dear Amr,

sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with you! :-) We're in violent agreement.
Kind regards,


On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
> Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
> I agree that we don't need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG. That's why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step. Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with only one of the GNSO's stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don't recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
> Thanks.
> Amr
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>> Dear Amr:
>> On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to 
>>> what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be 
>>> chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable, 
>>> a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could 
>>> adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a 
>>> chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that 
>>> came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started 
>>> off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly 
>>> because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the 
>>> CCWG-IG actually began its work.
>> I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We 
>> initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the 
>> NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped 
>> others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended 
>> up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with 
>> people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It 
>> took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most 
>> (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still 
>> grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
>> That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route 
>> and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know, 
>> it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around 
>> things. :-)
>> Kindest regards,
>> Olivier

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

cc-humanrights mailing list
cc-humanrights at icann.org

More information about the cc-humanrights mailing list