[ccwg-internet-governance] New Board mandate

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at reedsmith.com
Fri Apr 4 19:52:33 UTC 2014


Jocularity aside, I found the following traces of the Global Advisory Group on Internet Governance's mandate (below).  Maybe a member of the GAG-IG (yet another acronym...) can inform us of their work (members below) beyond these pot-shards found on the Internet.

Then the question becomes -- what  do we do with this "assignment"?  Is it a "challenge" to the multistakeholder community/agglomeration within ICANN to take this sow's ear and make it into a silk purse?

And if we don't, what does that say about MSM (ICANN Implementation)?

Letting it fall to the ground and walking away would not seem the best approach.

We can either engage with it, or determine why we can't.

If we do the latter, what might it say about the limitations of the MSM (ICANN implementation)?

Or particularly  what I will call (don’t hit me) the multi-multistakeholder model (MMSM). By this I mean what we (re)discovered in Singapore at our non-public meeting -- that there are different versions of the MSM in use at ICANN, and when you try to assemble them into a grand MSM, there is a grinding of gears and gnashing of teeth, in spite of the good will and overlapping desires and goals we all bring to the table.

Perhaps the CCWG-CCWG (!) will solve these problems, but perhaps (or likely) not in time to pick up the gauntlet and run the gantlet before us.

So we may need to answer the question ourselves.  And maybe the answer is that it's easier to be a GAG than CCWG.  On a GAG, one may represent a point of view but not be acting as a representative of a specific SO/AC (or part thereof).  In a CCWG.... well, we (or many of us) know what happened.

But is a GAG really multistakeholder (or, hearing Marilyn's dulcet tones as I write, "bottom-up consensus-driven multistakeholder" (bucsMSM))?  Could each SO/AC (or part thereof) expressly imbue its representatives with limited but extraordinary powers to speak without constant consultation (so long as properly briefed, to avoid "going rogue"), so long as any "recommendation" of the group was subject to review and consensus by each SO/AC before it could be made "official"?  Would that split the difference between being a nimble group and yet acting as mere vessels for the sentiments of our stakeholders?  Or are we condemned, as an MMSM, to be lashed together in a fashion that makes progress impossible, except by the most painstaking and incremental steps?

Therein hangs a question far larger than was dreamt of in our Singaporean swoon....

Greg Shatan



1.  The resolution creating the GAGs may be found at https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17feb14-en.htm

The resolution itself is as follows (and note especially that the GAGS are supposed make recommendations to the Board in advance of (or at) ICANN50) :

THE RESOLUTION:
Resolved (2014.02.17.01), the Board approves the creation of several President's Globalization Advisory Groups in order to support further ICANN globalization. These Advisory Groups of Board members are being set up to provide guidance to the full Board in support of ICANN's globalization work led by the President and CEO. The President's Globalization Advisory Groups will meet with the community during ICANN 49 Singapore Meeting, and around IETF 89, and other community meetings to discuss the ICANN globalization issues. The President's Globalization Advisory Groups will then make recommendations to the Board, which the Board will report during ICANN 50 London Meeting.


2.  As to the work of the group, I found this in a pdf document summarizing the various GAGs:

President’s Globalization Advisory Group on: Internet Governance

Composition:
Cherine Chalaby
Heather Dryden
Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Bruno Lanvin
Olga Madruga-­‐Forti
Gonzalo Navarro
George Sadowsky

1) NETmundial
Engage through a multistakeholder environment, to obtain proposals for a middle-­‐
ground solution to end polarization post-­‐WCIT. Promote consensus and participate
on a roadmap for continued dialogue post-­‐NETmundial.

2) /1net
Partner with other organizations to establish a broad, cross community stakeholder
movement to reinforce the value of the multistakeholder model and the future of
global Internet governance mechanisms.

3) The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance
Mechanisms

Global stakeholders gathered by ICANN, the World Economic Forum, and the
Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands, to propose model for evolving Internet
governance ecosystem based on common Internet Governance principles. Develop
consensus on panel comprised of academia, civil society, business, governments and
technical community.

-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 1:00 PM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Cc: CCWG
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] New Board mandate

Let’s get out the ouija board and communicate with the Globalization Advisory Group work plan, I guess…


On Apr 4, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> Ah yes - cos ICANN does globalization so well....
>
> ------------------------
> Mr. Michele Neylon
> Blacknight
> http://Blacknight.tel
>
> Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
>
>> On 4 Apr 2014, at 18:12, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>>
>> Michele, I figured you had all the time in the world....while you
>> wait for your 2013 RAA waiver.  :-(
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:03 PM
>> To: Avri Doria
>> Cc: CCWG
>> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] New Board mandate
>>
>> Cos obviously we've got nothing better to do with our time...
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Mr. Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight
>> http://Blacknight.tel
>>
>> Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
>>
>>> On 4 Apr 2014, at 17:56, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> (observer)
>>>
>>> I think they are going to hope you figure that out in a bottom-up manner.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 04-Apr-14 03:44, William Drake wrote:
>>>> This being the case, have we received from the board any indication
>>>> as to exactly what work contemplated to be undertaken by this Globalization Advisory Group they'd like to see incorporated into the work being undertaken by the CCWG?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (observer, observing)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27mar14
>>>>> -e
>>>>> n.htm#2.d
>>>>>
>>>>>> Resolved (2014.03.27.28), the Board hereby dissolves the
>>>>>> Globalization Advisory Group addressing Internet governance, as
>>>>>> the Board anticipates that the work contemplated to be undertaken
>>>>>> by this Globalization Advisory Group will be incorporated into
>>>>>> the work being undertaken by the Cross-Community Working Group on
>>>>>> Internet Governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess this resolves many of the ongoing discussions about dissolving rebooting or what.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> avri

_______________________________________________
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance



                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list