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

Sam Lanfranco sam at lanfranco.net
Sun Mar 10 01:43:56 UTC 2019


With Kobi underway I won’t belabor key issues here but do want to 
underscore what might be the central issue with ICANN’s engagement with 
other “sister organizations” with regard to the Internet ecosystem. It 
has to do with “..dialogue with those either drafting or deciding upon 
legislation or regulations [on] more policy orientated; for example, how 
the proposal affects our contracts with Registries or Registrars.” That 
part is clear.

Where the challenge resides is how do ICANN the corporation and ICANN 
the staff remain accountable when the external policy issues range 
beyond what can be seen as clearly within developed and stated ICANN 
policy (as per PDP WG’s, etc.) and go into areas of mutual interest that 
have not necessarily already worked through the ICANN policy process.

That issue is similar to the one faced by NCSG, NPOC and NCUC. In 
contrast to, say, IPC representing the interest of and speaking on 
behalf of the IPC constituency, ngo/civil society groups do not speak on 
behalf of civil society. Instead they address issues that are in the 
public interest and speak to issues of concern to civil society. They 
engage in civil society interests but do not formally represent civil 

It is highly likely that policy discussions in other venues will proceed 
in areas that touch on ICANN’s remit, and raise new issues that ICANN 
would normally handle in a multistakeholder consultative manner. Such 
discussions are likely to proceed much more rapidly than ICANN’s normal 
pace of policy decision making.

The tension will be between ICANN under pressure to take positions in 
new areas and at a pace that present a challenge to ICANN’s normal 
processes, but where ICANN should neither defer comment nor wisely 
remain silent. The challenges will be: (a) who makes the position 
decision (Board, CEO, Staff), and (b) how are those decisions and 
decision makers held accountable to the ICANN multistakeholder decision 
making process? In non-multistakeholder corporations these processes and 
accountability are fairly clearly specified. In a multistakeholder 
organization they are not.

All the best at Kobi. Don't get into too many beefs, and if you do make 
sure it is Kobi beef.

Sam L.

On 3/9/2019 7:49 PM, Nigel Hickson wrote:
> Sam
> 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;
> Best
> Nigel
> *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 
> 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]
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_proposed-2Dorg-2Dengagement-2Dgovt-2Dstandards-2Dcharter-2D25feb19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=zrexfOEO3b3o2Na-sK3AmbGsMJjJbaFtIVaMv4J9fME&s=531UHv47bPZappe-lH3f4KoqdddRsOEe9oHpZRnGmEU&e=>
>     best
>     Nigel
>     *From: *Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>     <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>     *Date: *Saturday, 2 March 2019 at 14:21
>     *To: *Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
>     <mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>
>     *Cc: *ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>     <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>, William Drake
>     <wjdrake at gmail.com> <mailto: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
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            <rest deleted for brevity>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20190309/112abcb1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list