[ccwg-internet-governance] Comments from GNSO council about CCWG-IG charter

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 18 20:41:03 UTC 2017

we need to this much earlier in the week, as many are traveling as of Thursday.

I am sorry to insist on this, but these questions need thoughtful and informed discussion

and responses, and recognition that some of the ICANN community do not have the 'opportunity'

to fully follow all that is going on in IG that is risky to the ICANN core mission.

And we need to be sure that anyone not able to travel in person, whatever the reason, has full access

to participate in any discussions and events during ICANN59.


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, June 16, 2017 4:29 AM
To: farzaneh badii
Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Comments from GNSO council about CCWG-IG charter

Hi Farzaneh,

Yes definitely it will be really helpful to work on the response so that can be raised during GNSO Council meeting.
if needed we can organize a call early next week for the drafting team.



2017-06-15 1:38 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:
Hello Rafik,

As we are getting very close to Johannesburg meeting, should we start working on a response?




On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

I am sharing here some comments below made by Donna in GNSO council list regarding the amended charter. You will find also comments made in the attached word document.

The status of the CCWG-IG  and the amended agenda were discussed in last GNSO council call last week and several councilors made comments there (transcripts https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-18may17-en.pdf  , https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-18may17-en.pdf and here https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-18may17-en.mp3). There are still concerns with the current structure and the mission of the CCWG-IG in particular from our colleagues in contracted party.

the council has as an action for Johannesburg meeting to "discuss and prepare a motion to either express support for a new charter or withdraw as a chartering organization".

I suggest that we work on a response from the CCWG-IG to those comments and making suggestions when needed.  we can do that first at the drafting team level first and then going to the whole group for discussion.



---------- Forwarded message ----------

Thanks Rafik, for providing a copy of the word doc.

I’ve made some comments in the document and perhaps you can address these during the Council meeting tomorrow or over email. I apologise that I didn’t get these to you earlier. These comments are reflective of concerns expressed by the RySG when the CCWG IG has been discussed.

I understand that post-transition ICANN needs to be cognizant, and responsive, to any potential threats to its mandate and well-being from external entities. This is not a new situation, but certainly the new environment may see a new wave of threats emerge. I certainly appreciate the benefits of having a community that is conversant of these threats and are actively engaged with ICANN the organisation and the Board with a view to mitigating against any emerging threats.

I do have concerns about the authority of the CCWG IG to develop position papers and present these as ICANN community contributions, but perhaps this concern would be allayed if I had a better understanding of the subject matter of these position papers. I would also hope that any position papers would be supported by ICANN’s GE team and the Board IG WG. I think the Charter would benefit from more specificity in this regard, along with concrete examples of the IG fora the CCWG would attend or be involved in in some way.

I still struggle with the CCWG as the most appropriate vehicle for this effort and it would be helpful to understand if other possibilities were discussed, or conversely why the CCWG believes this is the most appropriate vehicle. My struggle relates to the fact that the Charter speaks to a number of different products, but no timeline or specificity. While the charter proposes co-ordination with the ICANN’s GE team and the Board IG WG, to me it would seem a much better option to have the members of the current CCWG IG, ICANN’s GE team and the Board IG WG, develop an overarching strategy on IG, which clearly sets out roles and responsibilities and project plans could be developed as a result. Perhaps this has already been done and I am just not familiar with it.

Look forward to discussing on the Council call tomorrow.



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...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170618/29d68f37/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list