[ccwg-internet-governance] GCCS Statement

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 17 19:48:27 UTC 2015


I should clarify that I support Avri's analysis of the opportunity for consultation with the CCWG-IG, and indeed, that would have beenuseful to critically valuable.  BUT, we continue to have a gap in understanding by staff and CEO/Pres and Board about what valuethis consultation brings.
I guess we need to have further discussions on how best to fulfill our responsibilities as a CCWG. 


FOR NOW, we have more opportunities ahead:ICANN's ongoing briefings on IG and WSISCSTDITU Council WG on WSIS and IIPPWSIS Forum
.... to name a few.
And planning for the session in BA that we must lead on.
M

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:55:00 -0400
From: avri at acm.org
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] GCCS Statement


  
    
  
  
    Hi,

    

    But it is not in the DNA of ISOC to be bottom-up driven, as much as
    some of us would like to see that become the case.

    

    The ICANN GCCS sign-on is an interesting case.  Many knew the
    majority of the content of the GCCS closing statement at least a
    week before the end of the meeting;  in fact at least a week before
    the beginning of the meeting.  So it wasn't an unexpected itch that
    need immediate scratching.  There was time for consultation with the
    Board and perhaps a CCWG like this one.

    

    avri

    

    On 17-Apr-15 13:31, Olivier MJ
      Crepin-Leblond wrote:

    
    
      
      Dear Avri,

      

      it's the first I heard about it. I gather it's something which
      happens on the spot, but you do raise an interesting question
      about process. 

      What if the GCC had advocated a future that none of us agreed
      with?

      I note that ISOC members were not consulted either, as far as I
      know.

      Kind regards,

      

      Olivier

      

      On 17/04/2015 18:49, Avri Doria
        wrote:

      
      
        
        Hi,

        

        Part of I*, including ICANN, put out a statement on GCCs

        

        http://www.internetsociety.org/news/statement-members-internet-technical-community-after-global-conference-cyberspace-2015-gccs2015

        

        ICANN signed on to this statement.  

        Is this group or any other group consulted before we do things
        like that?

        

        Did the Board approve the statement on our behalf?

        

        Curious about how these things go down.

        

        thanks

        

        avri

        

        

        

        
        
          
            
                  
              
                 This email has been checked for
                  viruses by Avast antivirus software. 

                  www.avast.com
                
              
            
          
        
        

        

        
        

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

      
      

    
    

  





	
		
			
				
			
		
		
			
				This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
				
www.avast.com
			
		
	






_______________________________________________
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/20150417/1694a09c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list