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

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. carlosraulg at gmail.com
Thu Dec 15 13:05:44 UTC 2016


+1 Matthew

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 14 Dec 2016, at 18:48, matthew shears wrote:

> I don't think that we should assume that the work warrants a CCWG.  We 
> should consider it among a range of options that will give the WG the 
> best opportunity to function productively and efficiently and show 
> relevance to the community.
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 14/12/2016 17:17, James Gannon wrote:
>> Im sorry but I must chime in here, its not that simple, there is a 
>> framework for CCWGs and its up to the CCWG-IG to show how it can 
>> conform to this framework, its not enough to just say well we have to 
>> be one. This attitude is one of the reasons the original motion was 
>> brought to council.
>>
>> -James
>>
>> From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of 
>> Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org 
>> <mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>>
>> Date: Wednesday 14 December 2016 at 20:45
>> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com 
>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 
>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, Greg Shatan 
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, farzaneh 
>> badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: "ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
>> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>" 
>> <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
>> <mailto: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
>>
>> Good evening
>>
>> I completely agree; the work we do is of a status, comparatively 
>> speaking, that warrants us as a CCWG,
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of 
>> Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com 
>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday 14 December 2016 13:55
>> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, 
>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii 
>> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
>> <mailto: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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:*ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> 
>> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of 
>> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 1:12 PM
>> *To:* Greg Shatan; farzaneh badii
>> *Cc:* ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org 
>> <mailto: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
>> 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 request:
>> - 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
>>
>> To include:
>>     - Some of staff reports on CSTD, WTSA etc.
>>     - Report on WSIS Forum in Geneva - including the note on the CCWG 
>> IG workshop there
>>     - 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 affect ICANN
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 moment.)
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM, farzaneh badii 
>>> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto: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 <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>
>>>         [mailto: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
>>>         <mailto: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/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_ccwg-2Dinternet-2Dgovernance-2D23jun16-2Den.pdf&d=DgMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=rV5iUEyisLZxeegKMafT8kIiXya1e18XgDcart_Nx6k&s=HQSOqNAYgl1t2Fxm0G9KfvTXeFoJOFE2Vmau-hwdp0M&e=>).
>>>         >
>>>         > 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/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_uniform-2Dframework-2Dprinciples-2Drecommendations-2D16sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DgMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=rV5iUEyisLZxeegKMafT8kIiXya1e18XgDcart_Nx6k&s=idhdGmymJga9P7KWocGrZW0PxwJ0CokvgwTeTcG8Z0M&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
>>>         <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Farzaneh
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>>     ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>     <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>
>> -- 
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html[gih.com]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus


> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161215/322becda/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list