[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [council] AMENDMENT - Motion on Conditional Participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for CCWG-IG
nigel.hickson at icann.org
Wed Dec 14 20:45:14 UTC 2016
I completely agree; the work we do is of a status, comparatively speaking,
that warrants us as a CCWG,
From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marilyn
Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday 14 December 2016 13:55
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
Cc: ccwg <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
before we suggest that we are not a legitimate CCWG, I prefer that we try to
assuage the objections and explain to those who are not perhaps aware of the
challenges to ICANN that continue and why the CCWG -- which is cross
community is important to continue.
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
<ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:12 PM
To: Greg Shatan; 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
Thanks for your eager follow-up everyone.
Rafik and I have held a call with Nigel Hickson and Desiree Cabrera earlier
today. From this call came several action items:
1. The Doodle Poll which has appeared in your mailboxes. Please fill it ASAP
so we can choose a good time for our next call. This call will
understandably be a process call for the CCWG IG. In this call, we were
going to propose the further AIs below:
2. Propose to the CCWG-IG a two-pronged approach in response to the GNSO's
- review the current Charter by putting it into a table & pointing out its
discrepancies with the guidelines for CCWGs as ratified by the GNSO Council.
Can these discrepancies be fixed? Can the CCWG continue to operate as a CCWG
with amendments made to its charter so it fits into a CCWG box?
- Rafik has obtained from GNSO Staff a list of other vehicles that could be
used to accomplish the CCWG's mandate. (attached is a DRAFT table on GNSO
Structures & Mechanisms that could be helpful) - we were going to suggest
studying the other vehicles, perhaps proposing a mix of vehicles that have
already been tried and tested. (so there is a precedent)
3. Proposal for the drafting of an Annual Review of Working Group activities
- Some of staff reports on CSTD, WTSA etc.
- Report on WSIS Forum in Geneva - including the note on the CCWG IG
- Reports Rafik and I have made for GNSO in Marrakech & Helsinki (can
take from transcripts)
- Staff report from IGF workshops in Guagdalajara - on topics that
Rafik and I were told that there were staff resources available to
facilitate the drafting of this Annual Review, but that with the holiday
period approaching, we should aim at a mid-January date for this. It is well
understood that much of our problems have stemmed from having very little
reporting done back to our respective chartering SOs and ACs, so having an
annual report appears to be helpful. We could also have monthly reporting
starting from January.
Finally, on the suggestion made by Greg to have a sub-drafting team, I am
all for this; I do not think that Charter discussions are the cup of tea for
everyone participating in the CCWG, thus we can form a small group quickly
and it would be great if the sub-group to start operations by our next call.
On 14/12/2016 17:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> 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.
>>> Keith Drazek
>>> Vice President
>>> Public Policy & Government Relations
>>> Verisign, Inc.
>>> +1-571-377-9182 <tel:+1%20571-377-9182>
>>> kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
>>> From:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik
>>> 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
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> GNSO council just approved unanimously this motion. It is still chartering
>>> organization but we got work to do by Copenhagen meeting.
>>>> > 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 ³At each ICANN Annual General Meeting,
>>>> starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be reviewed by
>>>> the participating SO¹s and AC¹s 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 SO¹s
>>>> or AC¹s extend the Charter of the WG and notify the other participating
>>>> SO¹s and AC¹s accordingly one month after the annual review date².
>>>> > c) The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23 June
>>>> 2016 (see
>>>> eFoJOFE2Vmau-hwdp0M&e=> ).
>>>> > d) The GNSO Council recently adopted the ³Uniform Framework of
>>>> Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups² (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
>>>> > 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
>>>> dGmymJga9P7KWocGrZW0PxwJ0CokvgwTeTcG8Z0M&e=> ). 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
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-i
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4587 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance