[ccwg-internet-governance] Omnibus CCWG-IG or separate CCWG-IANA?

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at reedsmith.com
Sat Apr 5 15:55:19 UTC 2014

I think this is the most practical approach, with two comments:

First, we should make this decision quickly, and let the community (through SO/AC's and probably the Boardstaff as well, given our "GAG gift") know quickly, that the CCWG is _not_ taking on IANA. That way, cross-community coordination on IANA (in whatever form) can begin on a separate track.

Second, some of the more "maximalist" approaches to IANA bleed out to cover significant changes in ICANN and beyond, or treat IANA as a piece in the overall puzzle, so there could be some boundary issues.  But that shouldn't stop this decision from being made.

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device

----- Original Message -----
From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 05:37 AM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Cc: CCWG <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] Omnibus CCWG-IG or separate CCWG-IANA?

Hi Keith

I’m taking the liberty of aligning the subject line with the subject.

On Apr 4, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

> Is the CCWG-IG the right group to focus on IANA 2.0, or should it be another CCWG? It seems that there may be value in the existing CCWG-IG completing its Charter and retaining a broader focus on general IG matters, of which the NTIA announcement and future IANA are just a narrow. albeit important, subset. I guess I'm wondering if we'd be better served with 2 separate CCWGs to appropriately handle these issues before us in 2014. The answer probably depends on the charter language and whether we think a single group can handle it all. I welcome any/all views.  Thanks, Keith

This was the subject of many a conversation in Singapore, particularly it seemed at the well lubricated Verisign reception.  I heard some people argue that IANA is not IG and therefore separate groups are needed, which strikes me a substantively nonsensical.  A more compelling consideration I think is simple pragmatism: ccNSO leaders appeared to say in two meetings I attended (they can please correct if I misunderstood) that they would pull out of the CCWGIG if it tried to take on IANA, and other stakeholder group leaders also have expressed reservations about this group doing it and suggested a clean start.  We could spend many cycles debating the history-laden perceptions and rationales behind this, but at the end of the day if important parts of the community are dug in on the notion of a second group and we’re trying to operate in a communal manner, there’s probably no much to be gained by trying to force things.  In addition, from a pragmatic standpoint, a real process on IANA in the time frame needed would most likely become so all consuming that the CCWGIG might have little ability to engage on the broader contours of IG and ICANN’s roles in the ecosystem.  And there are actual issues there...

So while we hardly need more mailing lists to subscribe to, I would argue for the path of least resistance.


William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),

ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org

                                                                * * *

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