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

Sam Lanfranco sam at lanfranco.net
Fri Mar 8 17:05:22 UTC 2019

Nigel and Marilyn,

Thank you for the postings on this topic. I would like to offer some 
meta-level comments on the issues at play here.

The scope and complexity of global Internet governance has reached the 
stage where ICANN is yet another stakeholder in deliberations and policy 
making. It has to figure out how to be engaged at that level. It will 
have to be engaged in deliberations in multiple bodies, and that will 
pose a multifaceted challenge to ICANN. The first is: Engagement with 
what bodies (UN, IGO and IO orgs)? The second is: What sort of engagement?

The proposed org engagement charter describes the bare bones of an 
engagement strategy process based on providing technical information on 
the “ICANNImpact”.  However, it leaves open a crucial third challenge: 
Within ICANN's multistakeholder model, how is the process accountable in 
terms of what is being provided as technical information input?

There is a complication here in that ICANN's operations, including the 
positions taken by the board and the staff on behalf of the corporation, 
derive their legitimacy from the ICANN stakeholder engagement and policy 
making process (PDPs, etc.). How is the decision to be made that 
determines that "technical information" provided is consistent with 
policy and the policy making process within ICANN's multistakeholder 
process? I realize that this is a complicated question, but I do not see 
how it can be ignored without seriously eroding ICANN's legitimacy as a 
multistakeholder organization.

I may be missing something here and would appreciate some discussion on 
this issue (/and passing this on if I am not on the 
ccwg-internet-governance) list/.

Sam Lanfranco

On 3/4/2019 5:51 PM, Nigel Hickson wrote:
> 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.
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-org-engagement-govt-standards-charter-25feb19-en.pdf
> best
> Nigel
> *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 
> 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?
> Marilyn
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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 
> 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;
> Best
> Nigel
> *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 
> 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.
> Marilyn
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
> Hi
> 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…
> Best
> Bill
>     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;
>     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:
>         Colleagues
>         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=>
>         Best
>         Nigel
>         _______________________________________________
>         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>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
> ***********************************************
> 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=>
> ***********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

"It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an
  unjust state" -Confucius
Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA
email: sam at lanfranco.net   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20190308/d454946e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list