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

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Sat Apr 5 10:24:04 UTC 2014


My personal view is the same i.e. for a variety of pragmatic considerations,
a group focussed solely on the issues with the IANA transition is the
approach to take here.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of William
Drake
Sent: 05 April 2014 10:37
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: CCWG
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. 

Bill


***********************************************
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),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

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



More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list