[ccwg-internet-governance] GNSO council motion on CCWG-IG

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 13:33:21 UTC 2017


Hi,

thanks for the message, basically GNSO Council had concern if the
cross-community working group format is appropriate for what we are doing.
we will try to compile all the comments and concerns to help us for our
task since that happened in different meetings, calls, and written comments.
for #5 no the intent is quite different. it meant if GNSO withdraws, that
doesn't prevent those coming from GNSO from participating in the working
group as they are doing currently.

Best,

Rafik


2017-08-25 20:45 GMT+09:00 cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <
cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>:

> Good afternoon:
>
> As a relative newcomer to CCWG-IG, I have long-standing professional
> interest in Internet Governance but very little concern as to how exactly
> ICANN deals with the subject matter.
> These documents appear to describe a remarkably heavy and protracted
> procedure, basically, to achieve … reinstating the status quo.
>
> This is particularly perplexing as it is nowhere explained what exactly
> are the objections of the GNSO Council to the CCWG-IG, as presently
> constituted.
>
> Regards
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
> PS: Paragraph 5 of the GNSO Resolution seems to say that only GNSO
> members who are already participating in CCWG-IG may continue to do so. Was
> that intended?
>
>
> On 25 Aug 2017, at 09:49, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> GNSO council had a motion regarding CCWG-IG as result of discussion about
> the future of the working group during the last months. We also had
> discussion during F2F in Johannesburg on the related issued raised by GNSO.
>
> The motion was passed unanimously yesterday  https://community.icann.org/
> display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+24+August+2017  . It tasks us as
> group to propose a new vehicle to replace the current structure in coming
> months. Please find below some of relevant "resolved" items:
>
> "3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and others
> interested parties come together to explore a framework / model that more
> fully addresses the concerns that have been expressed by the GNSO Council,
> and submit this framework / model to the GNSO Council for its consideration
> at the Council meeting mid-way between ICANN 60 and ICANN 61 (e.g. February
> GNSO Council meeting).
>
> 4. To facilitate the work as requested under Resolved clause #3, allowing
> for a reasonable time to coordinate with other SOs and ACs to develop a new
> structure, and to ensure there is no gap between the retirement of the
> CCWG-IG and the establishment of its successor group, the GNSO Council
> shall withdraw as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG effective at
> the conclusion of ICANN 61 in San Juan, expecting that a replacement
> structure will be ready for approval by the Council at that time."
>
> As agreed in previous call, we asked for volunteers to join a small to
> work on the proposal based on the requrirements and concerns we heard. Now,
> we have a clear deadline by when we should deliver our work.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170825/cee58274/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list