[ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to Call of 9 Feb 2016

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 11 14:50:00 UTC 2016

I share concerns about some of the activities that the CEO self initiated, and that the community had concerns or questions about -- the Stanford Deliberative Poll funding and endorsement comes to my mind as an example. Or creating five WGs on topics that the community was not in full support of, and spending quite a bit of money on those. those WGs actually probably launched what led to the creation of the CCWG-IG>
However, I support staff participation in a variety of IG activities, including the WSIS+10, CSTD, UNESCO, WSIS Forum, IGF, etc. 
that does not mean that members of the community are not also in attendance, but we are not there as ICANN stakeholders, typically, we are all there in different roles, more broadly about IG. 
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater on when and what ICANN staff, or even the senior staff or Board should attend. Let's instead focus on those areas that the community did not understand or finds challenging and wants to better understand.

To: nigel.hickson at icann.org; ocl at gih.com; farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
From: sam at lanfranco.net
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:13:21 -0500
CC: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to Call of 9 Feb 2016



    Two quick responses:


    First, ICANN should be obliged to say how the "discussing critical
    internet resources" in a particular instance fits within the ICANN

    I don't see that as a difficult task when the issues fit the remit,
    as is easily the case with regard to the ITU and UN agencies.


    Second, you will notice that I did not include the ITU and the UN in
    the list of activities (WEF, IGF, WISI+10, etc.) cited in the

    I am not saying "Don't participate". I am asking ICANN to declare,
    up front, what within ICANN's remit is on the agenda there. 

    That may or may not get supported by some or all of ICANN's
    constituencies, and maybe ICANN should or shouldn't be there. 


    Outreach and engagement, to promote awareness and engagement on the
    part of constituencies, 

    is as much about pointing out what is appropriate within ICANN as it
    is pointing out 

    where concerns might be taken when they reside outside the ICANN


    Sam L.


    On 10/02/2016
          5:06 PM, Nigel Hickson wrote:

      Good evening; so when the ITU or UN
            is discussing critical Internet resources we (as staff)
            should not be involved? 

          From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>
          on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>

          Date: Wednesday 10
          February 2016 21:35

          To: Olivier MJ
          Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, farzaneh
          badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>

          Cc: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>

          Subject: Re:
          [ccwg-internet-governance] Follow-up to Call of 9 Feb 2016


          From my perspective
            there are two issues here, one a dead issue and another one
            that has not really been put on the ICANN table yet, nor is
            it obvious that it should be put on the ICANN table.


            Several quarters, inside and outside ICANN, were concerned
            with regard to the extent to which Fadi, as ICANN CEO, was
            or was not exceeding his CEO terms of reference in some of
            the NetMundial/WEF and Wuzhen activities. There may be
            lessons to be learned from that with regard to Board
            decision transparency and CEO terms-of-reference, but those
            activities are pretty much a dead issue with the departure
            of Fadi, unless we discover that commitments were made on
            the behalf of ICANN and without the knowledge of ICANN.


            The other issue, i.e., to what extend should ICANN be
            engaged with, or not engaged with, such initiatives and
            activities as a newish NetMundial, WEF, IGF, Wuzhan,
            WSIS+10, etc., is a separate issue. Individual stakeholders
            within ICANN, as stakeholders within the global Internet
            ecosystem, are of course free to engage when and where they
            wish. ICANN entities, and individuals as ICANN office
            holders or staff, may not  engage in their capacity as
            office holders or as staff, unless explicitly authorized to
            do so on specific tasks. 


            Whether ICANN itself should be engaged is a separate issue.
            I think it should not. ICANN does not own its constituencies
            and other engagement should be constituency driven from
            within the global Internet ecosystem. 


            This does not prevent the exchange of information within
            ICANN about and around such initiatives. Stakeholders and
            stakeholder groups benefit from knowing what is going on and
            who is doing what, and where, across relevant parts of the
            ICANN ecosystem. It also does not prevent collaboration and
            cooperation around common efforts where mission and vision
            overlap, whether those efforts are from ICANN entities or on
            the part of ICANN staff working within their ICANN staff


            The various parts and players here are a bit like planets in
            a solar system. They are independent entities in motion, but
            their proximity means they influence each others movement,
            while they remain independent entities.

            Unlike planets, the players and entities are alive,
            watching, and capable of joint and independent strategic


            Sam Lanfranco, Chair

            NPOC Policy Committee


            On 10/02/2016 2:49 PM,
                Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

              Dear Farzaneh,

my comments inline:

On 10/02/2016 18:59, farzaneh badii wrote:

                Wolfgang is not a board member anymore .

I never said he was.
                And why do we have to steer away the discussion about Wuzhen and
ICANN? This is not about Fadi. It is about ICANN being represented
there and if it is ok for ICANN to continue its representation.... so
if it comes up , why not discuss it ?

Is ICANN represented there? What do you mean by "represented"? ICANN
representatives take part in many meetings from UN related meetings to
local IGFs etc. I don't think this WG has any way to dictate this. On
the other hand, if "represented" means ICANN representatives leading
initiatives on behalf of ICANN, that might be another story. I see a
different from participating in an initiative and leading an initiative.

Kindest regards,


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

"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160211/cd3aea3e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list