[ccwg-internet-governance] CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP (CCWG) IG CALL; 6TH AUGUST, 2019
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 9 10:20:01 UTC 2019
Thanks for the summary, Nigel and other ICANN staff.
I have two questions, however, as I consider our discussions.
Question 1: this bullet is from the summary:
* Agreed deletion of process for public consultations (as there will be none)
I am not sure that I want to be so definate that this group would never call for public consultation. I can envision that we might recommend a "town hall", such as was held prior to NetMundial. I think perhaps the concern is with how the term " public consultation" is used within ICANN related to gTLD policy, or the ICANN budget, etc. etc.
We might instead reference something like:
"From time to time, if there is broad interest and support in the EGIG, the public meeting may include active interaction with the broader ICANN community to seek feedback on specific topics related to Internet Governance engagement.
Question 2: Engagement with whom:
I agree that this group will want to be welcoming to engagement with all parts of ICANN, but it is an open and inclusive group. Continuing to engage with all relevant parts of the ICANN SO/AC/Constituencies seems useful, and we can even have a little voluntary effort to request opportunities to do mini updates, if we assess the active membership and find that we are lacking diversity of participants from each of the groups.
However, what I thought -- after I reviewed again, was missing was a very strong and encouraging comment from us about maintaining engagement with the full Board Sub Committee as well as the chair, and with all Senior staff who are engaged in Internet Governance activities.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Happy to work on language.
From: ccwg-internet-governance <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 4:55 AM
To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP (CCWG) IG CALL; 6TH AUGUST, 2019
Good morning; please see an informal Note of the Call this week below;
CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP (CCWG) IG CALL; 6TH AUGUST 2019
A constructive and relatively well-attended Call which witnessed considerable progress being made on Terms of Reference (or a Charter) for the new Engagement Group and an agreement to hold an IG public session (topic to be determined) and a face-to face meeting with the Board Working Group on IG in Montreal. We also had an update on current IG issues including developments (potentially affecting ICANN) at the UN in New York on Cybersecurity, at the ITU, WIPO and OECD.
Please see https://community.icann.org/x/M4HkBg<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FM4HkBg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc612e92a2245415808fe08d71ca76fcb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637009377769295360&sdata=pgp6azTKMSvcNdbwfxpkG7yx5dfpA%2BWpBvKmI6Acc4A%3D&reserved=0> for details of Call, including Recording and participants.
1. Introduction, Welcome, Adoption of Agenda (2 minutes)
Olivier Crepin-Leblond started the Call and welcomed everyone; he noted that agenda would primarily focus on new Charter for new Vehicle (Engagement Group), discussions at ICANN 66 and IG issues. He welcome Leon Sanchez (Chair of Board Working Group on IG) to the Call.
Dierdre Sidjanski read out participants from Community, Organisation and Board and gave regrets, for the record. She initiated Recording.
2. Discussion of non-Charter for Group (15 minutes)
Olivier noted the Google Doc (above), and thanked everyone for their input. He noted there had been plenty of suggestions for title and other elements of Charter.
Olivier suggested that we went through the document chronologically seeking views on the different suggestions that had been made.
The main issues touched on were as follows:
* Marilyn Cade noted with concern that some comments (on document) were not attributable; in discussion, it was suggested this may down to software rather than from purpose;
* Lori Schuman noted that the tone in certain areas could be improved to be more positive in tone; perhaps by not talking about “threats” but “challenges and opportunities; was agreed that further edits should be in this vein;
* The discussion touched on who Engagement Group should engage with, was noted should be all parts of ICANN, Community, and not just the Organisation or Board;
* The Group discussed the “alignment” of activities and whether this goes beyond scope; was noted this potentially went too far; was an aspiration; adjustments to be made from edits provided;
* Should we define in TOR that we meet in both F2F format and at a public IG session in all ICANN Meetings (apart from Policy Forum)? Was decided we should;
* Should we also specify need for “inter-sessional” Calls – yes, was agreed we needed to add text here; recognising this is how we “work”; but not being specific on numbers;
* Leon Sanchez posed question on whether the new Group has a “mandate” – was noted we are, in some respects, effectively creating one through Charter
* A question as to whether to remove phrase on (EGIG) “acting collectively” on a position on ICANN/IG issues; was agreed that it did not act together; but could, potentially, seek a common view;
* Should we (EGIG) develop “position papers” at all? Was thought this could be left as potential role for Group if was clear they we “non-binding”; and should anything be “endorsed” at all by Community?
* After some discussion, (and a suggestion from Leon) it was agreed that anything produced is non-binding, so we should avoid notion of “position” papers; retaining “informational” papers;
* Agreed deletion of process for public consultations (as there will be none)
* Do we need Statements of Interests (SOI) of all participants? Olivier and others thought we probably should. Was agreed that participants should not necessarily be from SO/AC structures (Nigel Hickson noted this was current position).
Olivier concluded that we should work on further edits with aim to agree a draft before ICANN 66.
Action: To further work on Charter to ensure final draft before ICANN 66.
3. Preparation for ICANN66 Sessions (20 minutes)
Olivier noted we would probably want the two different sessions (an IG Public session and a F2F Session with ICANN Board WG). He asked what sort of topic would we want? We can ask for topics to be shared on the List?
Nigel noted we would, in normal way, apply for Sessions to Meetings Team.
Marilyn agreed we needed the two Sessions; as did others.
Action: To suggest, by end of month, topics / issues for IG public session at ICANN 66.
4. IGF Berlin (5 minutes)
Marilyn said we needed to discuss Community involvement in relevant sessions.
Nigel said would update List (though had provided earlier information) on those IGF Sessions ICANN Org and Board are leading on. He also mentioned the possibility of conducting “Flash Sessions” at ICANN Booth should such be deemed appropriate.
Olivier asked for suggestions on the List
Adam Peake mentioned there will be opportunities at the Booth for Flash Sessions and other meetings / discussions.
Action: To suggest ideas for Flash sessions at Booth (or elsewhere).
5. Update on Internet Governance development (15 minutes)
Nigel briefly mentioned (post ICANN 65) ICANN participation in ITU GSR (July) and potential forthcoming involvement in ITU Telecom World. He also mentioned on-going work at OECD (CDEP Committee and “Going Digital”, work in WIPO on geographical domain names and the UN CSTD inter-sessional meeting in Autumn.
Veni Markovski gave brief update of UN OEWG preparations (UN, June) with call by Russia representative to create a permanent body for Cybersecurity in time; he also mentioned linkage with UN HL Report on Digital Cooperation.
Olivier asked where Recommendation on the UN Panel are being discussed?
Nigel Was noted in a variety of fora, including consultations initiated in IGF MAG, and by EuroDIG.
6. AOB (3 minutes)
There was none
1. To further work on Charter to ensure final draft before ICANN 66.
2. To suggest, by end of month, topics / issues for IG public session at ICANN 66
3. To suggest ideas for Flash sessions at Booth (or elsewhere
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance