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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 19 20:52:11 UTC 2017

I filled in the Doodle poll and will make my self as available as possible. I hope that also we will have a few others, especially as we need some diversity of input across the various stakeholders.

Councilors from most of the Constituencies speak under instructions. I know that is not true for all. BUT, is true for most.

We need to also offer to speak to each constituency to answer their members questions and concerns. Count on my support as much as possible.


From: ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:18 PM
To: Rafik Dammak; farzaneh badii
Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Comments from GNSO council about CCWG-IG charter

Hello all,

although I am surprised that the means of response of the GNSO Council is through a cut/paste of its internal discussions, and not through an official GNSO response, I do not know if we are responding to the GNSO Council or to less than a handful of councillors from the CPH.
In any case, please be so kind to find a doodle poll for anyone interested to be on a drafting team to furnish a "response": http://doodle.com/poll/i5apywqqdgiwiai5

Doodle: Response to questions about CCWG IG Charter<http://doodle.com/poll/i5apywqqdgiwiai5>
Doodle radically simplifies the process of scheduling events, meetings, appointments, etc. Herding cats gets 2x faster with Doodle. For free!

The Doodle poll will close by 23:59 UTC on Monday.

Kindest regards,


On 16/06/2017 10:29, Rafik Dammak wrote:
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>

ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170619/5d9eecf2/attachment.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list