[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Thu Aug 14 07:19:49 UTC 2014


Dear Jordan,

thanks for your follow-up. The Charter is still in the hands of the
SO/AC Chairs but has taken 2nd place with the current two big issues
that SOs & ACs have to contend with, namely the IANA Stewardship
transition (where a charter has just been completed and will be also
presented to SO/AC/SG Chair shortly) and the ICANN Accountability thread
(where several SO/AC/SG Chairs have asked that a CCWG be created whilst
ICANN Staff have presented a model that includes non ICANN participants
and that's Staff-run.

This summer's characterised by a slowdown due to lack of volunteers yet
a high level of activity I haven't seen in years.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 14/08/2014 08:17, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Checking in - where are we at with the charter?
>
> Best
> Jordan 
>
> On Thursday, 26 June 2014, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I would like to point out that this number has been the case in the
>     earlier version of the charter, including those that were circulated
>     while I was still a member of this group.  In fact I dropped from
>     member
>     to observer in order to do my bit to help the SO meet the proposed
>     numeric conditions.
>
>     The larger body count with which this particular group was started was
>     due to the original situation of founding this group from a NCSG-ALAC
>     core.  Once some of us working on the early versions of the charter
>     looked at the equivalence issues of giving each of the RALO, e.g. as
>     many members as we gave each of the SGs, we decided that this would
>     cause rapid enlargement of the group and possibly result in more
>     imbalance between the SOs and ACs.  One of the goals of the original
>     charter writers, of which I was one while still a member, was to
>     strive
>     to an approximation of SO/AC equal footing.
>
>     avri
>
>     On 26-Jun-14 08:03, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>     > Thanks, Greg.
>     >
>     > As I said, I apologize for not having noted that change at the time.
>     > I appreciate that point of view, but as there is much discussion
>     within
>     > the GNSO's various sub organizations about participation in CCWG's
>     > overall, and the BC at least has had four participants in the
>     initial
>     > work of the CCWG IG, I am asking the CSG to consider the
>      present draft.
>     >  I didn't feel that I could recommend endorsement of the Charter
>     until
>     > this change was understood more broadly.
>     >
>     > Thanks for your email, I do appreciate it, and your explanation
>     to the
>     > CCWG IG of your role in drafting the proposed change in numbers of
>     > participants..
>     >
>     > Were you able to follow our discussion yesterday? If not, I can also
>     > catch up with you off line, although I think that we have a
>     transcript
>     > at some point.
>     >
>     > I also really appreciate Bill Drake's making sure that the
>     change was
>     > understood.
>     >
>     >
>     > Marilyn Cade
>     > BC
>     >
>     >> From: GShatan at ReedSmith.com
>     >> To: marilynscade at hotmail.com <javascript:;>; ocl at gih.com
>     <javascript:;>
>     >> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <javascript:;>
>     >> Subject: RE: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: Cross Community
>     Working
>     > Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter
>     >> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:26:41 +0000
>     >>
>     >> Marilyn:
>     >>
>     >> I've gone back and looked at this again (apologies for not doing so
>     > during the meeting), since I recall feeling that we had come to
>     a place
>     > that I think should be satisfactory to the GNSO. The current draft
>     > charter allows each organization "a maximum of six (6) Members
>     > (excluding the appointed Co-Chair)." This was actually language
>     that I
>     > had a hand in developing. With 6 members plus a Co-Chair, the
>     GNSO would
>     > have 7 seats, sufficient to allow each discrete organization
>     within the
>     > GNSO to be fully represented in a voting capacity. In addition,
>     there
>     > would be an equal number of Observers, so that at least one
>     additional
>     > member of each discrete SG/Constituency would be able to
>     participate as
>     > an Observer (I hope that's not an oxymoron). Therefore, I think
>     that the
>     > effect on participation may not be so significant.
>     >>
>     >> I'm not in London (sadly), but feel free to reach out to me by
>     email
>     > or phone if you would like to discuss.
>     >>
>     >> Greg
>     >>
>     >> Gregory S. Shatan
>     >> Partner
>     >> Reed Smith LLP
>     >> 599 Lexington Avenue
>     >> New York, NY 10022
>     >> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
>     >> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
>     >> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
>     >> gshatan at reedsmith.com <javascript:;>
>     >> www.reedsmith.com <http://www.reedsmith.com>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> -----Original Message-----
>     >> From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <javascript:;>
>     > [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>     <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Marilyn
>     > Cade
>     >> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:35 AM
>     >> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>     >> Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <javascript:;>
>     >> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: Cross Community
>     Working
>     > Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter
>     >>
>     >> My deep apologies for being so disconnected on the item about
>     numbers
>     > of participants from various groups in regard to the Charter. I was
>     > traveling extensively and thought I was keeping up with the major
>     > changes about the Charter re substance, our role, etc., and
>     frankly, I
>     > missed the proposal to change the number of members that we
>     launched the
>     > CCWG IG with, so substantially. And I would have commented
>     before if i
>     > had caught that, so deep apologies.
>     >>
>     >> I have to withdraw my recommendation that the GNSO support the
>     Charter
>     > until the participation topic is further clarified. This is what
>     I will
>     > take back, along with Phil Corwin who was also at the working
>     session
>     > from the BC, and socialize within the BC, and with Wolf Ulrich's
>     help
>     > from ISPCP, and with Greg Shatan's engagement, take this topic
>     up in the
>     > CSG's three constituencies.
>     >>
>     >> I will signal that I doubt agreement of such a drastic drop in
>     > participation from Constituencies in numbers.
>     >>
>     >> I personally find it very difficult to even think this is a
>     good idea,
>     > as the credibility of the proposals of the CCWG-IG will be based
>     on the
>     > acceptance that it was truly broad and diverse and engaging
>     across the
>     > Communities. It should not be 'represenational', but
>     participatory, I
>     > think, personally.
>     >>
>     >> However, I also want to note that there is a significant potential
>     > impact on the future of CCWGs acceptance and support from the broad
>     > communities, if there is a continued effort to so significantly
>     restrict
>     > participation. I don't think I am in support of an
>     interpretation of a
>     > CCWG being too large to make decisions, given the nature of
>     CCWGs. If we
>     > want by-in, we want broader groups of participants. I see no
>     evidence
>     > that the prior arrangement was too large to get work done,
>     although I
>     > can see that in decision making, perhaps that would be the time
>     to ask
>     > for the pool of participants from a particular Constituency to
>     designate
>     > only one lead, such as on the Charter, where we could have then
>     assured
>     > that there was a designated lead per group.
>     >>
>     >> Thus I am raising this this afternoon, but for now, I am not
>     able to
>     > support approving the Charter with the change in numbers, so
>     apologies,
>     > but thanks to Bill for catching that some of us did not fully
>     appreciate
>     > that change.
>     >>
>     >> other comments from today; I think we had a good number of positive
>     > and constructive actions proposed. They also sounded like productive
>     > work that will engage the members of the CCWG.
>     >> BUT, they also sound like work, which brings me back to
>     thinking about
>     > resources.
>     >>
>     >> I know it is confusing to have a last minute question about the
>     > Charter, and it is probably due to my rapid transit when I was
>     having an
>     > hour or two in between planes to try to look at the Charter and
>     possibly
>     > just not fully taking note of last minute changes.
>     >>
>     >> M
>     >> Sent from my iPad
>     >>
>     >> > On Jun 25, 2014, at 6:48 AM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
>     > <ocl at gih.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>     >> >
>     >> > Dear Marilyn,
>     >> >
>     >> >> On 24/06/2014 18:18, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>     >> >> I am also aware that the staff have planned a session on IG,
>     but I
>     >> >> don't think I am aware of any discussion with our CCWG IG, so we
>     >> >> should be thinking about what role we are playing in terms of
>     >> >> community input and guidance and how we are contributing to
>     >> >> fulfilling the role the community thought needed, when this
>     CCWG IG
>     > was established.
>     >> >
>     >> > There was no discussion on our CCWG IG re: the Staff session
>     -- and in
>     >> > fact it was only because we asked about this session that Staff
>     >> > invited me to take part.
>     >> > That session would have taken place without any of us being
>     present.
>     >> >
>     >> > Kind regards,
>     >> >
>     >> > Olivier
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>     >> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <javascript:;>
>     >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> * * *
>     >>
>     >> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
>     >> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have
>     received
>     > it in
>     >> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us
>     immediately
>     > by reply
>     >> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not
>     > copy it or
>     >> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
>     >> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>     >>
>     >> * * *
>     >>
>     >> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
>     >> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S.
>     > Federal tax
>     >> advice contained in this communication (including any
>     attachments) is not
>     >> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
>     purpose of (1)
>     >> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
>     applicable state
>     >> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to
>     > another
>     >> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>     >> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>     > ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <javascript:;>
>     > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>     ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <javascript:;>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20140814/4669c0b5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list