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

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Fri Aug 4 15:12:34 UTC 2017

Google DOC on:

On 04/08/2017 17:11, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
> 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

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170804/0073e9e3/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list