[ccwg-internet-governance] CONSENSUS CALL: Proposal to amend World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly Resolution 47

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 28 13:31:24 UTC 2016

Hi, Carlton,

I don't understand the GNSO resolution, as it was not circulated to the CCWG-IG first, to ask for input or information.

that is quite disappointing, and I will accept some of the responsibility that I missed it, as a BC rep to the CCWG-IG. I was away for both family and then other business and missed some of the work of the GNSO policy council.

I think this is quite strange that the GNSO policy Council did not first invite a discussion with the CCWG-IG and I have recently asked the two BC councilors to raise that as a possibility, before there is a vote.

Frankly, I am also surprised. who is opposed to the work of the CCWG-IG? Is it the contracted parties, and if so, is that because we did not do a good job of informing them about the risks to ICANN from the challenges to IG overall? Is it because we let everyone think that IANA transition was the only threat to ICANN? Was it because we were talking to ourselves [maybe] about IG and ICANN, and we forgot to do "internal awareness". Was it because some of the last CEO's endeavors and funded projects that even some of us objected to, caused concerns and that colored what we are really here to do?  And that that "color" led to an assumption that there is no need for, or support for ICANN engagement in IG Ecosystem, or that the views of the community are not needed?

I am at many of the IG events. I see business, technical community, GAC countries and CS/NGOs. I do not see the contracted parties with 3 exceptions. I do see CCTLDs. Perhaps the new players in the contracted party house are not aware that if we miss this opportunity to continue to support ICANN's role, they can follow the path of the ISPs and others who have to be licensed, or approved for operation on a country by country basis. That would wake them up, and they would then begin to value the benefit of ICANN's continued engagement so that they can continue to operate with permission, rather than national regulation, which affects the ccTLDs in many countries.

So, really, I do not understand this resolution and I cannot find it a useful approach. I hope that you and others will suggest that it be postponed, and that an informed discussion with the CCWG-IG be a first priority.


From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:14 PM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] CONSENSUS CALL: Proposal to amend World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly Resolution 47

That GNSO resolution puts a pall on the CCWG-IG you think?


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
Dear all,

as the document on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oQqqlEd8ZCQUnQKVTPMZkjeVSfvKoumFXTDnTXIiJMs/edit?usp=sharing has not received significant amendments in the past 24H and the WTSA is already under way in Tunis, the co-Chairs of the CCWG Internet Governance are issuing a 24H Consensus Call for the text that is currently in the Google Doc, also attached to this message.

At present, the comments that remain about the document are included for your information only but will naturally be removed before sending the document to the Chairs of the organisations having chartered the CCWG Internet Governance. The cover letter will explain how we hope that the text could be of use to members of the Chartering Organisations who are attending WTSA16.

Many people from across the working group's Chartering Organisations have contributed to this text. The Co-Chairs have therefore frozen the document as it currently stands and only major amendments to rectify inaccurate, wrong, or potentially damaging content will be allowed, bearing in mind that might affect consensus and delay the transmission of the document to the Chartering Organisations.

This Consensus Call will close at 12:00 UTC on Friday 28 October 2016.

Best regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
on behalf of the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance

ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20161028/d7fbdf10/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list