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

Oliver Süme os at eco.de
Mon Apr 7 15:48:31 UTC 2014


I do also think that "IANA 2.0" should basically not be in the focus of this CCWG and that the ICANN Community needs to deal with this in seperate groups.

But once there are the first proposals on the transition process _within_ the ICANN Community, the next question would be how to convene global stakeholders outside ICANN. At that moment, it could be at least a part of the tasks of this CCWG. Difficult to find the right balance here. But if there is something in the charter like „the goal of this group is to figure out ICANNs role in the IG eco system“ it would maybe cover this process if it should be necessary and if the community should decide about a different process or other responsibilities of a seperate group, we are fine as well.

Best

Oliver


Am 07.04.2014 um 11:14 schrieb William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> 
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Right.  All of us who’ve spoken to it have argued for a two CCWGs.  Are there any opposing views, or should we consider this be the consensus?
> 
> Bill
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140407/93c95e99/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list