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

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Fri Aug 15 04:05:23 UTC 2014


Sorry, I’m not clear about the context in which this – and maybe other related – CCWG is (are) embedded.

I’m specifically interested in the status of the CCWG dealing with the IANA stewardship transition. Cane anybody help?

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Rafik Dammak 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:48 PM
To: Jordan Carter 
Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance proposed Charter

Hi Jordan, 

we already send the charter to SOs/ACs but no updates from them. I think other matters like IANA transition , accountability and other stuff took any available bandwidth. 
we can send request to ask for a response.

Rafik




2014-08-14 15:17 GMT+09:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:

  Hi all 

  Checking in - where are we at with the charter?

  Best
  Jordan  


  On Thursday, 26 June 2014, Avri Doria <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; ocl at gih.com
    >> CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
    >> 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
    >> www.reedsmith.com
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
    > [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] 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
    >> 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> 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
    >> 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
    > 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



  -- 
  -- 
  Jordan Carter
  Chief Executive, InternetNZ 
  +64-21-442-649 | 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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20140815/d4394428/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list