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

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Mon Apr 7 08:06:39 UTC 2014

Hello all,

my personal view is that the current CCWG is on Internet Governance in
general and has an important mission to play in coordinating all of the
issues & communicating on them.
A separate CCWG on IANA is needed too and this is needed as a distinct
vehicle, such is the potential for that topic to be huge. I am worried
that if we had an omnibus WG the IANA issue would take up *all* of our
time and let us drop the ball on other IG issues.
Kind regards,


On 05/04/2014 12:21, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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