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

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Wed Dec 11 17:53:18 UTC 2013


The original draft, from Mikey, can be found at:
http://www.cloudmikey.com/wiki/projects/cwgcharterdraft/CWG_charter_draft.html



On 11 December 2013 12:46, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:

>
>
>
> -------- 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><kstubbs at afilias.info>  To:
> GTLD Registries <regycon at googlegroups.com> <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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus<http://www.avast.com/>protection is active.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>


-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20131211/2d9e3832/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list