[ccwg-internet-governance] Open consultation for ITU CWG-I

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Fri Aug 4 15:11:17 UTC 2017


Dear Jim,

On 03/08/2017 19:41, Jim Prendergast wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel.  Thanks for highlighting this.  I do have a few questions. 
>
>  
>
> Is this meant to be an ICANN Organization submission or a CCWG-I
> submission?
>
> For either scenario, Has a decision been made to definitely respond to
> the consultation?  If so how and when did that happen?
>

As Nigel has said, this is an ICANN submission & the decision to respond
or not was not made by the CCWG IG. Nor does the CCWG IG have any
ability to decide on this.

>  
>
> I'm trying to get a sense of how this group consults with their
> various constituencies on what is a very complicated and politically
> charged topic/consultation in time to formulate a response if a
> response is to be submitted.
>

I refer you to the procedure which I suggested in January of this year:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/2017-January/002519.html

Draft Engagement protocol

Working Group response to sounding board request by staff

- Consultation is published
T+5 - Consultation is sent to CCWG IG mailing list (by staff),
requesting comments by members in "A" days
- within "A" days, a first draft is produced and published on WIKI /
Google Doc and comments received for B days (A and B are values to be
chosen according to consultation deadline)
- After B+2 days, a second draft is produced and published on WIKI /
Google Doc and C days are given for comment (C is a value to be chosen
according to consultation deadline)
- After C+2 days, a final draft is produced and published on WIKI
- A 3 day consensus call for working group members is made

A+B+C+9 < total number of days of Consultation

In the present case the consultation ends on 16 August, which is a very
short amount of time.
12 days is our target. Say 11.
In the current case, Nigel is asking for feedback/answers on a number of
questions. I have created a Google Doc with the questions and
instructions. Let's take it that our deadline for response is 15th August.

How do groups check with their various constituencies?
That's undefined. I also proposed a response - on
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/2017-January/002520.html

That takes a case when a more substantial statement is drafted. The
pertinent points there are:

 * If Statement needs ratification from Chartering Organisations:
- Chartering SOs and ACs are informed of the proposed Statement and
asked to respond within D days.
- At D-3 days, a reminder is sent to the Chairs of the Chartering SOs
and ACs
- If Chartering Organisations respond positively the Statement is sent
out to the consultation process
- If Chartering Organisations respond negatively, the Statement process
ends.
- If Chartering Organisations are split on response, the Statement
process ends.

* If Statement does not need ratification:
- the Statement is sent out to the consultation process


That would shorten the turnaround on any output. Thus if we are to apply
this to the above, we'd need to shorten the 11 day target turnover to
respond to the questions asked on the Google Doc.

Feedback welcome.

Kindest regards,

Olivier



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170804/a4a4e95f/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list