[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: proposal for charter ( for discussion) submitted today the brasil input wg

Ken Stubbs kstubbs at afilias.info
Wed Dec 11 17:46:16 UTC 2013




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	proposal for charter ( for discussion) submitted today the 
brasil input wg
Date: 	Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:45:13 -0500
From: 	Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info>
To: 	GTLD Registries <regycon at googlegroups.com>



  Charter


  *



  * Added by Rafik Dammak
    <https://community.icann.org/display/%7Erafik.dammak>, last edited
    by Rafik Dammak
    <https://community.icann.org/display/%7Erafik.dammak> on Dec 11,
    2013  (view change
    <https://community.icann.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=43985839&originalId=43987450>)


Go to start of metadata 
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=CPMMB&title=Charter#page-metadata-start> 



        *Problem Statement*

What is the problem to be solved?

Prepare for ICANN-community participation in the upcoming meeting in Brazil

How does not solving this problem get in the way of achieving the 
organisation's objectives?

The ICANN community might miss opportunities to contribute to the dialog 
and outcomes of the meeting. Also, not involving the ICANN community in 
the preparation of this meeting will make it impossible for this to be a 
community-led, bottom up preparation process.

What value does the organization gain from solving this problem?

Engage in a bottom-up led conversation to advance the agenda articulated 
in the Montevideo Statement


        What is the chronology of the situation - how did we get here?

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htmMontevideo 
Statement

Idea of CCWG floated in the early-morning community meeting at ICANN48

On Thursday, ALAC and NCSG create a working group which the whole ICANN 
community is invited to join.


        What alternatives to doing this project have we explored?

The alternative is to NOT get involved as a community in the Brazil 
meeting nor the 1net coordination. This risks having parts of the 
community involved in an unstructured way thus bringing an imbalance to 
the input provided by the ICANN community in the 1net process.


        Stakeholders

All Stakeholders at ICANN.

Who will be affected by the problem?

Absolutely everyone. ICANN's model is at risk.


        Which employees?

ICANN policy staff - from two perspectives: support and policy-input
ICANN senior staff - from two perspectives: strategy and goal alignment, 
and funding/logistics


        Stakeholders?

All ICANN AC/SO's and stakeholders group/constituencies within them may 
have an interest.


        Others?

Potential for including groups that are not part of ICANN. Suggestion 
that the different SO/AC/SGs should reach out to their respective 
communities outside ICANN and let them know this work is taking place, 
channeling any of their concerns via them as their representative.


        Have they been involved sufficiently up to this point?

There is a sense of being left in the dark that is quite prevalent in 
the community right now.  This effort presents an opportunity to broaden 
engagement and make the process more transparent.


        Should they be brought in to the project?  When?

While there is a small risk of too many voices causing confusion, the 
posture of this effort is that broad engagement and participation are 
welcome.  Smaller groups can be formed if things become unwieldy example 
:a kind of pyramidal structure where there will indeed be splinter 
groups or sub-working groups that will come back to the wider group to 
report.


        To what degree do they share the belief that this is a problem
        that needs to be solved?

Broad agreement that the ICANN community needs to participate 
effectively in the Brazil meeting


        Who ought to 'champion' this project?

As this is a cross-community effort, AC/SO/Constituency leadership 
should champion


        To whom should the project team report?

Facilitators who will help with the communication of information between 
the various groups & the Board & Staff. Co-Chairs who will direct the 
work itself.


        Do we need a Steering Committee to provide resources and resolve
        disputes?

Yes -- include AC/SO/Constituency chairs and staff leaders (at least one 
from policy staff and one from senior staff).  The goals are speedy 
formation, infrequent interventions and nimble/helpful response when needed.


        Scope, Size and Perspective

What written definition clearly distinguishes between what is inside 
this project, and what is outside?

In scope:

Discuss logistical questions related to attending and participating in 
the Brazil meeting

Identify representatives to attend the meeting

Develop mechanisms whereby in-person participants can inform, and obtain 
guidance from, remote participants during the course of the meeting


        In scope?

start creating position papers & put them on a WIKI & then from these 
position papers, see what commonality the different writers have.

Provide a point of contact between ICANN and the broader 1Net initiative?


        Out of scope

Provide input to the Internet Governance Strategic Panel


        What is the level of detail and precision involved in this
        effort - is this a sweeping global effort (like a vision or
        strategy) or is this a project to produce specific outcomes
        (like install a system, or build a house)?

This is a narrowly-focused effort to prepare the ICANN community for a 
new meeting that is  a few months away. this group should spend most of 
its time on the content -- certainly not finding answers, but certainly 
finding the right questions to launch into the debate that will take 
place in Brazil.


        Goals & Objectives

What tangible, deliverable things do we want to see when this project is 
completed?

To convey message from the ICANN community to Brazil meeting about 
common positions and also diverse opinions from ICANN groups regarding 
the issues to be covered by the meeting

This project will provide ICANN with clear positions that it will be 
able to hold at the Brazil Summit thus parrying attacks on the 
multi-stakeholder model

How do we know when the project is done?

This effort will conclude shortly after the end of the Brazil meeting


        Critical Success Factors

What things do we need to do well in order for this project to succeed?

Remain focused on the narrow scope of preparing for Brazil

Try to put aside historic rivalries and mistrust

Focus more on the message and less on positions/logistics/politics.

Work to a short-interval schedule

Focus the work on email lists, wikis and other asynchronous tools.  Use 
periodic teleconferences sparingly and wisely

Build relationships and trust, both inside and outside of ICANN


        Preferred Problem-Solving Approach

These questions are the socket into which a work plan is inserted.  
Revisit them once the broad outlines of the charter are agreed.


        Who will do what tasks, with whom, by what date?

What are the intermediate milestone events and deliverables that we can 
use as checkpoints to monitor the progress of the project?


        Are they more than 1 or 2 weeks apart?

Do we need more (or fewer) tasks and milestones to keep the project 
under a reasonable level of control?


        What's the mechanism for getting things back on track if the
        project is missing key dates?

setting a roadmap


Write a comment...



------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.avast.com/> 	

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
<http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.






---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20131211/e5dc5d84/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list