[ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG IG: ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 4 23:27:17 UTC 2019

Thanks so much, Nigel.

I really appreciate seeing this.

In my view, it is much too narrow in its interpretation of threats and where ICANN needs to be engaged. And to take input and consultation with the broader ICANN Community.

If I, and others from business and others had followed this approach, frankly, ICANN would not even existed, as without the business community and broader technical communities' engagement and in understanding that technical standards also have policy implications and political risks, the weird and narrow approach of the gTLD-MOU, with 7 board members three of whom were from governmental entities could have carried the day.

It is not only "proposals" that present threats and risks to ICANN's integrity and core functions, but also activities and events. I was surprised not to see that included.

I support the idea that following standards setting work, and selected legislation with implications, but, I find this document in need of improvement to also address how engagement with influential bodies happens, and how the community, through the CCWG-IG, can provide input.

I also think that a continued focus on just the I*s misses the point that for technical matters, this is extremely important, that is simply not sufficient in our new world.

I didn't even see a reference to the possible implications of the UN proposals on CS work; or the implications of the UN HL Panel on Digital Cooperation.

I have huge respect for the existing I*s, but that misses other influential and potentially supportive technical entities, such as the IEEE.  It also misses that as a multi stakeholder entity, ICANN needs to engage also with other communities, not only the technical community.

We are all aware that engagement is underway. What we are asking for is to have more transparency, and to accept that the broader ICANN Community, via the CCWG-IG can add value and benefit to ICANN's success.

Finally, can someone explain the reference : jurisdictions where ability to provide information on impact is limited...

ICANN is a 501(c)3. So, cannot engage in significant amounts of  lobbying activities. I agree,

BUT, is someone saying ICANN Org can't provide factual information in briefings and via posted materials?  I do look forward to talking to ICANN legal about that interpretation.  😊that was a joke. I am too busy to spend time with ICANN legal.  Instead, let's just invite them to the f-f of the CCWG-IG and they can help clarify this.

Thanks again. As this is the proposed charter, we need to consider it quite critically, my view.


From: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 5:51 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: ccwg; William Drake

Marilyn cc as above

Good afternoon; apologies for this late reply, I was away at weekend.

As have noted we can outline further information on ITU-D application process and associated Board discussions at the CCWG IG session at ICANN 64 should this be considered appropriate.

As for the overall Government Engagement strategy; you recall this was discussed by the CCWG IG in a meeting with the Board WG in ICANN 60.  Essentially; engagement, whether it be with the UN, IGO, IOs or other bodies, is based on a three-layer model.  Category 1 is where the activity of process directly impinges on ICANN Mission (such as some issues at ITU); Category 2 where ICANN role is in general support and collaborative engagement along with other players, such as at IGF; and finally, Category 3 which concerns selective engagement (such as with initiatives like the UN HLP or the Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace).

The recent announcement of a draft Charter (for ICANN Engagement with Governments and Standard Bodies), see link below, compliments the above approach.


25 February 2019 Proposed Charter: ICANN Organization Engagement with Governments and Standards Bodies When a government or non-Internet related standards body is considering a 1 ICANN will follow the following<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-org-engagement-govt-standards-charter-25feb19-en.pdf>
25 February 2019 Proposed Charter: ICANN Organization Engagement with Governments and Standards Bodies When a government or non-Internet related standards body is considering a



From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 2 March 2019 at 14:21
To: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Cc: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION

Thanks, Nigel.

Can you also please update on the recommendation and justification provided to the Board.  It does seem strange to me that after this received discussion within the CCWG-IG, and there were strong concerns raised, while some also were supportive, still, the overall view, as I recall was more than cautious and I, at least, expected to hear more before there was a recommendation that the Board would vote on, or approve, as in this case, perhaps a vote is not needed?

Establishing a strategy, as I have said before, that addresses the significant UN specialized agencies is welcomed as a proposal.

When is the Board vote? Is it before or after we meet?



From: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 4:29 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: ccwg; William Drake
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION

Marilyn cc as above

Good evening.   Thank you for your comments and for those of others; I recall those of Bill Drake (from before) as well.

In the IG Session at ICANN64, we would, if it considered helpful, give a presentation about benefits of joining ITU-D and the process the Board has decided should be embarked upon;



From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 1 March 2019 at 17:32
To: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Cc: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>, ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION

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 [eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.itu.int-252Fonline-252Fmm-252Fscripts-252Fgensel11-253F-5Fmemb-253DSAU-2526-5Fsect-253DD-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cf62726dbbcf54ddb33f508d69e6af2c6-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636870579504445810-26sdata-3D6rknTt7ai44m4nlVwltf4LSA6S3MDPr9fPeoUp-252BRKnA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=pB8Pyinkmb58SL7I5SEi5gCgF4UcsKWgNJkx1V6ITFQ&s=xxJ2SJjb70LRsgm8jDAXcgDuzzx43iPvEAoaNTWdIeY&e=> 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

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2019-02-28-en [eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.icann.org-252Fnews-252Fannouncement-2D2-2D2019-2D02-2D28-2Den-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cf62726dbbcf54ddb33f508d69e6af2c6-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636870579504465831-26sdata-3DaNxe6KQa-252FcpcR8ngY4-252FUS1ydSUA1oORrotg36-252B7nRxw-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=pB8Pyinkmb58SL7I5SEi5gCgF4UcsKWgNJkx1V6ITFQ&s=0VGpZnNxfbBR05VR95n7o0G28rR2VG4nV5mgWYs5T64&e=>



ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance [eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fccwg-2Dinternet-2Dgovernance-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cf62726dbbcf54ddb33f508d69e6af2c6-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636870579504485841-26sdata-3DXnggzDDVo7o0GAhlxFeU08QPLpXk4nDJng6SKGK4avQ-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=pB8Pyinkmb58SL7I5SEi5gCgF4UcsKWgNJkx1V6ITFQ&s=qRq82qE9T0JkW3qNJRPMU80h4CHROPEKGqBi4uSTwC4&e=>

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)
www.williamdrake.org [eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.williamdrake.org-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257Cf62726dbbcf54ddb33f508d69e6af2c6-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C636870579504495864-26sdata-3DS-252FUx-252BjRNbWNqHhId4orhDjrTIv2is0TI8Otw-252BXTMeCM-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=pB8Pyinkmb58SL7I5SEi5gCgF4UcsKWgNJkx1V6ITFQ&s=O41gfE7NIrRim6h-sXBXjgu0maw3iqzOy6UwxSs6-xo&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20190304/e6a73e52/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list