[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-IG

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 19:39:01 UTC 2016


We need to focus on the GNSO's concerns, which went beyond structure.
Being "useful," via communication to the rest of the community (both
generally, to the Council and to our respective SGs and Cs) and a defined
"deliverable" or series of deliverables, was also important.

While structure is important, and finding (or refining or inventing) the
right structure is important, in the short run we need to clarify the
"value add" of the group to the community (especially the GNSO).  A
structure is a package.  We need to be more concerned with what's in the
package.

A quick look at the GNSO-identified structures reveals the "Consultation
Group" and "Discussion Group" as the closest possibilities in my personal
opinion.  The CG is appealing because it contemplates a cross-community
effort, but typically these focus on things that are preliminary in
nature.  A Discussion Group tends to focus on substantive policy issues, so
that's not a great fit (plus "discussion group" sounds like what the GNSO
is telling us we shouldn't be (aka a "talk shop").

The grid is a good idea, since it will help guide our discussions of
structure as well as function.  But again we shouldn't get hung up on
structure without focusing on improving our functionality (and our
communication of that functionality).

Greg

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I did not think it needed to start as a GNSO effort, since it will be
> everyone's charter at the end.
>
> But the important thing is to start.
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think we should just do this, and I hope that Olivier and Nigel are
>> joining,  as well... but also gathering inputs and participants from all of
>> the GNSO constituencies. .
>>
>>
>> Yes, we need some geo diversity. Perhaps Jimson/BC - Africa ICT Alliance,
>> and some others from non WEOG can contribute. Someone from ISPs? Someone
>> from each other Constituency?
>>
>>
>> Are we inviting others from other SGs or ACs, or first drafting as GNSO?
>> Sorry to ask but I can also reach out to CCTLDS and GAC if you are seeking
>> broader drafting partners in this but I thought it was first GNSO?
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <
>> ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:53 AM
>> *To:* farzaneh badii
>> *Cc:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT -
>> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
>> Organization for CCWG-IG
>>
>> I suggest we assemble a (Re-)Drafting Team and get on with it.
>>
>> Marilyn has volunteered.
>> It might be a fair assumption that Keith and Farzi have "volunteered" as
>> well, by replying to this email.  (Which probably means I have volunteered
>> too).
>> Whether or not that's a fair assumption, I think we need some non-GNSO
>> participation in the drafting team to round things out (Marilyn, Keith,
>> Farzi and I are all similarly afflicted, though with different strains of
>> the GNSO virus).  A preponderance of GNSO folk is fine (especially since
>> the GNSO is the "inspiration" for this project), but we should be somewhat
>> more diverse than that....  (Farzi no longer even gives us geographic
>> diversity, since she's now a North American Georgia Peach, or Georgia Tech
>> Yellow Jacket, or something like that...)
>>
>> Let's not wait until the meeting next week to get this going.  Wouldn't
>> it be nice to have a progress report at next week's meeting instead?
>>
>> Any other volunteers?
>>
>> Anyone volunteering to chair?  (Not I, with apologies, I'm chaired-out at
>> the moment.)
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii <
>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Keith for bringing this up again. I think we need to start doing
>>> something about it and we have to start soon.
>>>
>>> On 14 December 2016 at 11:10, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there a plan to get this process started? Copenhagen will be here
>>>> before we know it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Keith Drazek
>>>>
>>>> Vice President
>>>>
>>>> Public Policy & Government Relations
>>>>
>>>> Verisign, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> +1-571-377-9182 <+1%20571-377-9182>
>>>>
>>>> kdrazek at verisign.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 07, 2016 4:10 AM
>>>> *To:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>> *Subject:* [ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT -
>>>> Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering
>>>> Organization for CCWG-IG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is still
>>>> chartering organization but we got work to do by Copenhagen meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>> ---
>>>> >
>>>> > 2.         MOTION – Conditional participation of the GNSO as a
>>>> Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss
>>>> Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN
>>>> >
>>>> > Made by: Darcy Southwell
>>>> >
>>>> > Seconded by:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > WHEREAS:
>>>> >
>>>> > a)      The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community
>>>> Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting
>>>> ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these
>>>> issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
>>>> >
>>>> > b)      The Charter foresees that “At each ICANN Annual General
>>>> Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be
>>>> reviewed by the participating SO’s and AC’s to determine whether the WG
>>>> should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN
>>>> community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the
>>>> participating SO’s or AC’s extend the Charter of the WG and notify the
>>>> other participating SO’s and AC’s accordingly one month after the annual
>>>> review date”.
>>>> >
>>>> > c)      The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23
>>>> June 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/draf
>>>> ts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf).
>>>> >
>>>> > d)      The GNSO Council recently adopted the “Uniform Framework of
>>>> Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups” (CWG
>>>> Framework) which details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation,
>>>> formation, operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by
>>>> Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
>>>> >
>>>> > e)      The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does not follow
>>>> this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an initial work plan and
>>>> associated schedule as foreseen in its Charter.
>>>> >
>>>> > f)       The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued
>>>> dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of Internet Governance
>>>> within an ICANN context.
>>>> >
>>>> > g)      The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO
>>>> Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject of this CWG and
>>>> its future.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > RESOLVED:
>>>> >
>>>> > a)      The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a Chartering
>>>> Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this participation is conditioned
>>>> upon a comprehensive review of the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in
>>>> accordance with the CWG Framework (http://gnso.icann.org/en/draf
>>>> ts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf). In
>>>> particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be subject to a clear
>>>> work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables.
>>>> >
>>>> > b)      The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present by
>>>> ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised charter or a
>>>> recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure.
>>>> >
>>>> > c)      Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the GNSO
>>>> Council will consider the recommendations and decide whether or not it will
>>>> continue as a Chartering Organization.
>>>> >
>>>> > d)      The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision to the
>>>> CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20161214/056961e8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list