[ccwg-internet-governance] Proposing a non-charter for the group
wjdrake at gmail.com
Tue Aug 6 10:38:08 UTC 2019
I support the non-charter, which is appropriately calibrated to the situation.
Just to echo one of Marilyn’s points
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 20:08, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I will do my best to be on at least part of this call, but I have other responsibilities re the CCWG-AP.
> First, let me commend the ICANN staff for sharing the ITU document about the WTPF. The ITU continues to overstep its core boundaries,
As evidenced by the long campaign by staff and supporting countries to add “/ICT” to “telecom” in everything they do…so the Draft Outline of the Report by the ITU Secretary-General that Nigel shared starts by saying that the "World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology Policy Forum (WTPF) has been successfully convened in 1996, 1998, 2001, 2009 and 2013,” which is a bit revisionist since the first four meetings were actually called World Telecommunication Policy Forums, consistent with the mandate. And this one will explore such traditional public telecom issues as "AI, IoT, 5G, Big Data, OTTs etc.” It should be a lively event with the usual governments looking to adopt normative language expanding the mandate into all kinds of Internet issues (but of course, the SG says they don’t do Internet governance, so no worries :-)
I take Marilyn’s point that there are other agencies of interest too, but it’d be really good if interested people from the ICANN community were to participate with written inputs or on site here in Geneva. May 2021 is a long way off but the preparatory process has started.
> and all of us need to be reminding other UN agencies -- and I mean, ICANN Org needs to do this as well as the ICANN stakeholder community -- that when they are the "owner or a primary" they need to step up to the ITU and while recognizing it is "one" player it is not the sole player.
> ICANN Org -- and I am going to be very frank here -- seems to think that by spending time with the ITU, they are creating friends and family, because some do come from these founding. WE must insist that ICANN Org get outside its comfort zone and make the CSTD, the UNCTAD, the UNESCO, and UNDP are our best friends.
> Ignoring their role means that the ITU staff who mean very well, work ONLY with the regulators, or the Ministries of Comms/IT, but we all understand that achieving the SDGs means: engaging Ministries of Health, development, agriculture, finance... and Youth...
> I'd like to see the similar documents from the other major UN agencies shared with this group, please.
> Marilyn Cade
> From: ccwg-internet-governance <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net <mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>>
> Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 12:26 PM
> To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>
> Cc: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org> <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Proposing a non-charter for the group
> Diversity is essential to ecosystem survival. The ICANN ecosystem tolerated a non-chartered "working party" around human rights. We have all learned to consume "zero-draft" versions of preliminary documents. Non-Charter is better than zero-Charter, and null-Charter or nil-charter would certainly not work.
> Regrets for tomorrow's meeting. I will be in transit.
> Sam Lanfranco, NPOC
>>> On 3 Aug 2019, at 17:06, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> on this forthcoming Tuesday's call, we'll have some time set aside to re-define the "Charter" of the CCEG based on the results of the discussions that were held at our last meeting in Marrakesh.
>>> First, it is a "non-Charter" - as we had decided that this group was not going to be Chartered. If you have a proposal for a less ambiguous term, please don't hesitate to make it. I do feel like some document is needed to define the group as it will help in focussing our information exchange, so this is my first stab at it.
>>> What I have done is to take the CCEG Charter and strip it of any mention of chartering. I also removed the allusion to "member" as this should be an open group, thus everyone will be either participants or observers, as they choose to be. A few other things have been removed as well, such as finding consensus and making decisions - as this is what we have received most objections about. And of course any mention of CCEG has been replaced with another funky acronym, the Internet Governance Engagement Group - IGEG - which my French ears tell me sounds better than EGIG - you might disagree.
>>> Anyway, here's the document:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G8GMxFGnMzk92o6BSIqka6irT_GPv2c3hCHi09Bu7LY/edit?usp=sharing <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1G8GMxFGnMzk92o6BSIqka6irT_GPv2c3hCHi09Bu7LY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7C%7C42e0d1309ebf43523bc508d719c1d1fc%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637006192546879143&sdata=q171MoRK1VbSXD8ZOdw13PTRMK89v%2BsLQnR%2FSRv68x0%3D&reserved=0>
>>> Please comment,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance