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

Young-eum Lee yesunhoo at gmail.com
Tue Apr 8 18:40:11 UTC 2014


Agree with most people that two separate WGs are needed.

- Young-eum Lee

Young-eum Lee
Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National
Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/>
Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU
Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/>
ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council
member<http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm>
Chairman, 7th Daum Open User Committee <http://blog.daum.net/openuser>


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Fares, David <DFares at 21cf.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140409/e5a2fb14/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list