[ccwg-internet-governance] Fw: Draft Engagement protocol: Working Group response to consultation

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 31 14:43:30 UTC 2017



Olivier, and CCWG-IG colleagues


The process proposed so far of requiring approval by the Chartering organizations every time we have a perspective will make it extremely unlikely that the CCWG-IG can ever respond -- except on very exceptional long consultation processes.  I am not sure that this kind of control over the CCWG-IG is the right direction, but I do think that we need to do a better job of creating awareness within the SO/AC Policy Council of the GNSO, in the GAC, and in the CCNSO Council, and ALAC.


that will require some discipline in developing messages. Also,  those who are members of the CCWG-IG that primarily carry two roles -- both on the Council and on the CCWG-IG should not become  ad hoc messengers. Just as with the other CCWG's it is the chairs that undertake the briefings.  We have perhaps assumed that by attending our open sessions that we were keeping people informed, but it has become clear that reports are the game of the day. So, I am pleased about the work that Sam Dickinson, as a contractor, is undertaking to prepare an Annual Report.  I did suggest some additional elements, and will, with all CCWG-IG members, look forward to reviewing the draft.


Along this line, in my view, it is better to plan to organize factual informative briefings, and schedule those, not require the Councilors to act as messengers, or even presentors. It gets confusing to the rest of the Council, and we need to build understanding and support in all the Chartering organizations, not just the GNSO Policy Council.


Turn around times on developing positions even just within the CCWG-IG members is a challenge and I again do not think the present proposal is actual able.


Let me give you an example:  30 -45 day processes are usual, but some are much shorter:


-CSTD WG EC: possible timeline for submitting comments:  30 days or less is typical, although there has been some flexibility in accepting late comments.

-WSIS Forum - opportunity to ask for workshop - coming up very shortly - like in days - Feb 20. Personally, I do not think that we need to ask permission from the Chartering Organizations to apply for a workshop, or  to approve the agenda for the workshop.  And we have a precedent of organizing a workshop at WSIS Forum before... [and including some of the Chairs, when the topic was relevant, such as  transition of IANA].

-Comments into open consultation on ITU Council Working group upon IPP - Internet Public Policy - this written open consultation might be long enough. However, the upcoming open ITU Council WSIS Working Group is in need of having participants [remote participation is possible], and it is too late to undertake much of a consultation on that, as it meets next week. I will post a separate comment about the important messages into that WG, and also into the ITU Council IPP's open consultation meeting, which is coming up Friday.

-Comments into ICANN's Strategic Plan and Budget processes -- which might have implications for ICANN's engagement in the IG ecosystem.


-Comments to "their" governments by individuals from the CCWG-IG to their individual governments about any particular issues -- e.g. use the CCWG-IG as an informational resource to encourage direct individual engagement at home about IG issues -- GAC members not always the right path to talk to the pertinent government person -- does that need permission of the SO/AC?



________________________________
From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org><mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com><mailto:ocl at gih.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 3:12 AM
To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] Draft Engagement protocol: Working Group response to consultation

Hello all,

I am following up on the action item:

Devise a process for the working group to respond to consultation
( https://community.icann.org/x/_6vDAw )

Let's start the discussion on the process:

Draft Engagement protocol

Working Group response to consultation

- Consultation is published at day T
T+5 - Consultation is sent to CCWG IG mailing list (by staff / by co-chairs / by member of CCWG-IG)
- Within 5 working days, CCWG-IG members decide on whether to respond to consultation
- If yes - 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

 * 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


Kindest regards,

Olivier



--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170131/76268d7e/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list