[ccwg-internet-governance] GNSO council motion on CCWG-IG
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 29 20:34:30 UTC 2017
I have already made my comments that we are in need to doing more awareness about what is happening outside of ICANN that puts its mission at risk.
Rafik, I think we mean those coming from the GNSO constituencies/SGs -- right?
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 9:33 AM
To: cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] GNSO council motion on CCWG-IG
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.
2017-08-25 20:45 GMT+09:00 cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>:
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.
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<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
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...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance