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

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Sun Mar 10 00:49:28 UTC 2019



Good morning.  Others are more qualified to come back to you on this than I. 


I think, however, that you have raised important and interesting questions. 


On the first, “…who the dialogue is with?”; the answer is perhaps simpler.  Under the Engagement Strategy, discussed with the CCWG IG at previous meetings, the Organisation has dialogue with a range of different bodies, both IGOs and other IOs which are doing work touching on our Mission.  The Charter does not, in the main, effect this though identifies national and regional governments as key. 


On the question of “..what sort of engagement…” the proposed Charter addresses that. Essentially it is in dialogue with those either drafting or deciding upon legislation or regulations; either orally or (in case for example of public consultations) in writing.  Just as importantly, as you note, is what is said. On one degree can be purely technical, for example on implications of a regulation affecting how DNSSEC may work, on the other might be more policy orientated; for example, how the proposal affects our contracts with Registries or Registrars. Recognise the latter could be more nuanced as regards being consistent with overall ICANN policy. 


Look forward to further discussion; 







From: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>
Date: Saturday, 9 March 2019 at 02:07
To: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
Cc: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG IG: ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION


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 [icann.org]






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> wrote:


On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:07 AM Jim Prendergast <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] 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> 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> 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]






ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance [eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]

ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists)
www.williamdrake.org [eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]






ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
"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 [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/20190310/45e3a8d3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20190310/45e3a8d3/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list