[ccwg-internet-governance] New Board mandate
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Sat Apr 5 14:45:36 UTC 2014
++1: Meaning, the role suggested for this CC is endorsed as well as the
call for a specific CC WG working the "IANA-related" issues; howsoever they
can/may (?) be circumscribed.
Having regard to 'consultations', it seems to me what must be embraced is
the nature of the 'volunteer' work force in ICANN. Alan [Greenberg] has
taken some pain over the years to remind us that, for example, the
definitive characteristics of an At-Large volunteer is totally different
from that of a Rs/Ry volunteer. This must surely have an impact on the
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at netnod.se> wrote:
> On 4 apr 2014, at 22:48, 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.
> I think CCWG should concentrate on general IG issues, and not specifically
> IANA related, and discuss how that fits with ICANN processes and structures
> -- and potentially feed back into ICANN (and not only outward towards
> external entities) what might have to be changed.
> Myself for example, I am a strong believer in the power of the existing
> consensus based processes we have in each SO/AC, and think the right thing
> to do is to reuse as much of that as possible. The weak part we have in
> ICANN is how to bring those views together, and that we must improve. That
> could be (given feedback from external processes, other CCWG etc) things we
> could work with.
> I heard in Singapore that many people where nervous the lack of good CC
> processes that where "more bottom up than just consulting" was something
> that was a problem. Myself, I rather see good consultations than nothing,
> but of course I also would like to see more effective bottom up processes
> "all the way up" in ICANN an not only to the "peak" of each SO/AC.
> So I would support:
> - This CC work with more general IG issues, and because of that
> potentially more long(er) term changes needed also to ICANN, to make ICANN
> "fit better" in the over all IG landscape
> - A specific CC working on "the IANA related issues"
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance