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

Fares, David DFares at 21cf.com
Tue Apr 8 05:22:35 UTC 2014


I agree that IANA raises a specific issue and perhaps deserves a different CCWG.  The two CCWGs could coordinate as appropriate.  

Thanks,
David

-----Original Message-----
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 4:40 AM
To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Omnibus CCWG-IG or separate CCWG-IANA?

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

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


This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.




More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list