[ccwg-internet-governance] Open consultation for ITU CWG-I
jim at GALWAYSG.COM
Mon Aug 7 14:09:32 UTC 2017
Thanks for this Olivier. Wasn’t clear to me and having the procedure handy is helpful too.
From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 11:11 AM
To: Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>; Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>; ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Open consultation for ITU CWG-I
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:
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
- If Chartering Organisations respond positively the Statement is sent
out to the consultation process
- If Chartering Organisations respond negatively, the Statement process
- If Chartering Organisations are split on response, the Statement
* 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance