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

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Tue Apr 8 03:40:20 UTC 2014


Hi everyone

I absolutely agree with Jordan and Olivier.

The IANA transition raises a very specific set of issues - both the transition of technical oversight and the larger issue of accountability.  

I would strongly support - and happily participate in - a separate group that focusses specifically on the IANA transition processes.

Holly
On 7 Apr 2014, at 6:06 pm, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> 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,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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