[ccwg-internet-governance] GCCS Statement

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Sat Apr 18 17:25:37 UTC 2015


Marilyn 

Good evening.  

On the ³GCCS² when we discussed in last Call was not aware we would be
consulted on Chair Statement; and should have consulted; was simply pressure
of work. 

On CSTD, yes indeed; we will attend as Observer as before; the agenda is on
site and when ³WSIS 10 year Review² Paper emerges; will circulate.

As discussed on WSIS Forum we will also be present; and hopefully discuss on
Call next week how we work the Workshop slot we have in Programme.

Have an excellent weekend

Best 

Nigel   

From:  Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Date:  Saturday 18 April 2015 15:24
To:  Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>, "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
Cc:  CCWG <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [ccwg-internet-governance] GCCS Statement

Thanks, Nigel.  

This can be a good learning experience for the CCWG-IG, as well, I think.
We should discuss what we want from ICANN staff on the various events we
have on our calendar of events.

For instance, I am attending CSTD and ITU Council, and WSIS Forum.
Others on the CCWG-IG will as well.

Hoping that ICANN is attending CSTD and WSIS Forum as well. In both of
those, it could be useful
to have a high level discussion on the importance of these fora and how
ICANN's mission, or IANA and Accountability may "come up".

I am happy to collaborate with you on identifying some of the topics of
relevance to stakeholders on our upcoming CCWG-IG call.  Some are widely
beyond ICANN's perview, but ICANN as a topic will be part of the
discussions.

M


From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
To: avri at acm.org
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:50:59 +0000
CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] GCCS Statement

Good morning

I think I have to take blame for this. I was only one in ICANN really
tracking it. 

We were consulted about 10 days ago through the Netherlands consulting civil
society. ISOC were on this list and thus consulted technical community. The
Chairman Statement was I assume originally crafted by the government in
consultation with UK/US/Korea.

We commented just on two paragraphs, those touching on IANA and WSIS. I
should have circulated draft to CCWG at this point.

At Conference itself Fadi spoke in opening and on Panel. Will do Report. We
had bilaterals with Ministers from India, Australia, China, Brazil,
Indonesia, UAE and Egypt. Also COE and OSCE.

The "statement" we signed on to was only circulated by ISOC on Thursday for
agreement Friday. 

Best

Nigel

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 Apr 2015, at 19:56, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 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-com
>>> munity-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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>>> antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg
>>> -internet-governance
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>> antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150418/cbc3b5f4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20150418/cbc3b5f4/smime.p7s>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list