[ccwg-internet-governance] ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 1 17:32:19 UTC 2019

I think that the Board members are hearing from ICANN Org staff but somehow perhaps not hearing from the broader community on this topic.

Can the ICANN staff please share the recommendation and the justification for the recommendation for sector membership to the CCWG-IG list?
I believe the past discussions on this list and during our f-f meetings would have indicated this is at least a courtesy, if not even more.


From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 12:25 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: Nigel Hickson; ccwg
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION


Further to Marilyn’s comment, FWIW I remain of the view I expressed last summer in response to Jim:

On Jun 24, 2018, at 17:22, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:07 AM Jim Prendergast <jim at galwaysg.com<mailto:jim at galwaysg.com>> wrote:

What wasn’t clear to me is what is ICANN currently not getting that sector membership will get them?

​Treatment as a stakeholder in ITU's processes rather than ​as an independent and equal global governance organization and community?

ITU “org” and many members historically have been reluctant to recognize multistakeholder orgs as peer entities even if they’re involved in international governance decision making.  But ITU does e.g. have collaborative relations with e.g. the ISO and IEC, and the Internet resolutions do e.g. call on ITU to "to explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and relevant organizations involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future Internet…”  Maybe it’s dreaming to think ICANN ever could get normal observer status, but doesn't joining them as a member on par with these bodies https://www.itu.int/online/mm/scripts/gensel11?_memb=SAU&_sect=D<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.itu.int%2Fonline%2Fmm%2Fscripts%2Fgensel11%3F_memb%3DSAU%26_sect%3DD&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf62726dbbcf54ddb33f508d69e6af2c6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636870579504445810&sdata=6rknTt7ai44m4nlVwltf4LSA6S3MDPr9fPeoUp%2BRKnA%3D&reserved=0> sort of lean away from any need to consider such solutions?

Not trying to be difficult, but agree it’d be good to hear the assessment of costs/benefits…



On Mar 1, 2019, at 14:52, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Nigel, many of us, myself included, raised strong concerns about this staff led initiative, which does not reflect the full input of the ICANN Community.

I'd like to have this added to the discussion on this list, BEFORE THE BOARD VOTES, which seems to be over the week end before Kobe -- eg. 7th/8th?

I understand that the proposal is to become a sector member of ITU-D, and I also understand that the work done in that sector is potentially complementary; however, ICANN staff seem to continually assume that the ITU is more important than UNESCO; UNCTAD, WIPO.

It would be helpful to have an overall explanation of ICANN Org recommendation about engagement in the broader suite of UN organizations. Each has a relevance for the ICANN mission/core activities, and hearing from ICANN Org staff how they are addressing engagement with these other UN entities will be exceptionally helpful.

To start, it would be helpful to see ICANN org's responses to questions that have been raised about the risks/benefits described for the broader community in becoming a sector member.

I have seen statements like: "we" don't like to have to ask permission, or "we as staff are uncomfortable with not being treated on an equal footing.  Or, we have a great relationship with the ITU leadership. etc. etc.

I look forward to hearing further explanation about how the community's views were taken into account.

Marilyn Cade

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:46 PM Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org<mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>> wrote:


In respect of previous dialogue on this issue; please see below




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>

William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Department of Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20190301/ea5d4345/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list