[ccwg-internet-governance] CCWG-IG CALL; 16TH MAY; 2019
nigel.hickson at icann.org
Wed May 22 06:21:54 UTC 2019
Please find below an informal noted from GE of the Call on 16th May.
CCWG-IG CALL; 16TH MAY; 2019
In Summary, this was a constructive and positive Call which discussed a number of on-going Internet Governance Initiatives, affecting ICANN, as well as adjusting the current Charter of the (proposed) Cross Community Engagement Group to reflect the views of AC/SOs. We also briefly reflected on the positive engagement by ICANN (including the CCWG IG) at the WSIS Forum in April, and the process underway for ICANN applying to be a sector member of ITU-D.
1. Introduction, Roll Call, Adoption of Agenda
There were around 20 people on the Call; the agenda and recording can be found at
The Chairman (Olivier Crepin Leblond) initiated the Call noting:
That apologies had been received from Leon Sanchez;
That this was the first time with that “Zoom” had been used in our Calls;
That, while welcoming all; no additions to agenda were as posted
2. IG Activities Update (including WSIS, IGF, and UN processes)
(i) 22nd Annual Plenary of CSTD
Nigel Hickson (GE) gave a brief overview of the discussions which were taking place in Geneva; referencing the (usual) discussion on the WSIS Outcomes (which ICANN contributed to) and the (ongoing) drafting of the WSIS Resolution. On the latter, he noted it was unlikely that any recommendations would interfere with ICANN Mission;
(ii) UN HLP on Digital Cooperation
Nigel briefly noted that the Secretariat had recently confirmed that the Report (from the Panel to the SG) would be submitted in early June and would be published for comment.
(iii) IGF MAG
Veni Markovski briefly updated the Call on the preparations for IGF 19 in Berlin. He referenced a briefing session in New York earlier in week (by Germany) and the positive work being taken forward by the MAG, the next meeting being in Berlin in early June. He noted the enthusiasm and commitment of the host and their support for young persons from developing countries; as well as a Parliamentary session, they were organising at end of the IGF week.
He also noted that the Workshop evaluations would be completed by MAG by early June with the Day 0 session already published.
He also referenced (as discussed with CCWG IG before) the focus at the UN on Cybersecurity, with the work of the UN Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) and the (25 Member State) Government Group of Experts (GGE) initiating their work later in year with a pre-event (hosted by UNIDIR) in early July in NY.
Olivier asked what aspects of cybersecurity are UN looking at; what is the focus;
Veni noted previously had been a focus on national security aspects, norms and legal issues; but groups can essentially set their own agenda; ICANN being essentially a provider of factual information;
Olivier asked what the relevance of this work was to ICANN? Veni noted the potential focus on critical Internet resources and also on DNS;
Marilyn Cade noted, re IGF, of the growth in NRIs, not least youth initiatives; with a focal point in the IGF Secretariat (Anja) – she noted opportunity for NRIS to liaise with national governments and to discuss positions re cybersecuirty;
Marilyn noted, in relation to UN discussions, how in Nigeria the Ministry is working closely with the NRI on Internet / UN issues; including having representatives on delegations;
Marilyn noted how useful it is for coordination at national level to be fed into UN, with Veni, noting there was evidence this was taking place already; also noted how GAC can be also helpful in this respect;
Olivier noted we had not put in an IGF Workshop proposal due to time constraints and the uncertainty of where EPDP/GPDR work would be;
(iii) WSIS Forum
Nigel reported briefly on ICANN engagement at the WSIS forum (in Geneva) noting the role he CEO and Theresa Swinehart had played (both in high level sessions and in bilateral discussions including with the ITU SG and the WIPO DG);
Olivier noted the CCWG IG session on GPR/EPDP and the positive contributions made by Kurt Pritz and Keith Drazek, he also referenced the slide deck of the EPDP process (on Wiki). He also mentioned the work of the Phase 2 deliberations and the appointment of Janis Karklins (as chair) who was in the WSIS Forum session.
3. Discussion on CCEG IG Charter
Olivier introduced this agenda item by noting the link (in chat) to the (proposed) CCEG IG Charter; as distributed to the SO/AC prior to ICANN 64; for this he noted:
ccNSO has decided not to be a chartered member as is setting up their own IG coordination group; linked to CCWG IG;
GAC has also advised will not be a chartered member at this point;
gNSO has advised they would prefer to contribute to a non-chartered CCEG IG group;
ALAC would be prepared to become a chartered member;
Nigel noted the significant increase in membership of the CCWG IG (especially from GAC) following the well-attended sessions in Kobe;
Marilyn expressed disappointed with respect to the formal position of the gNSO; though was pleased to see enhanced interest (in the Community) of potential effects of IG issues on ICANN; noting informal advice in other fora can be just as powerful as through governments;
Sivasubramanian wanted CCWG IG to have a serious role with respect to the many multilateral pressures we face; thus ideally a chartered group would be better positioned to do this work;
Olivier said what was important (apart from being chartered or not) was the continuation of staff support (from GE) and also the interaction with the Board WG on IG;
Nigel noted that we should finalise arrangements for new CCEG IG (as CCWG IG was no longer chartered); and that there was no reason why there should not be continued support.
In conclusion, Olivier – said that we should (on List) put some thoughts down on the Terms of Reference (TOR) for this new Vehicle.
4. Discussion on ITU-D Membership
Olivier introduced the Item by noting the discussion that had taken place in the CCWG IG F2F Session in Kobe;
Nigel outlined where ICANN on the process for applying for ITU-D Membership on a fee-exemption basis; noting that a Paper would be before the ITU Council in June (that listed ICANN among other applicants) for approval. Once that took place we would be ITU-D members; though ratification would be subject to the ICANN Board;
Judith Hellerstein – asked whether ITU-D membership would affect our attendance at Regional Groups and how we would attend relevant ITU-T activities;
Marilyn – noted that members of CCWG-IG had raised substantive concerns at Kobe and previously, and was concerned that there was not a consultation of CCWG-IG on the intention of the Board; she was also concerned that the Board may have been given over ambitious expectations of the role of ICANN as a sector member (including that decisions at Council and Conferences were only taken by governments).
Nigel noted that membership of ITU-T (in future) could well be considered by Board; and that we recognised limitations of sector membership;
Marilyn noted that she accepted Board decision but it was important to be realistic of how open ITU is; recognising that nothing will change overnight;
Olivier asked what an alternative to sector membership may have been?
Marilyn – she offered that a tightly drawn MOU would have been better
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong asked whether there was any impact of ITU-D membership by ICANN, to the current multistakeholder model inside ICANN? It was thought there was not.
5. Any Other Business
Marilyn asked about the draft “Charter” on legislative tracking. She had understood (from discussion at Kobe) that we were going to have a discussion in the CCWG IG about the Charter and whether this had been a suitable form of communication with the Community on this important issue;
Mandy Carver noted that the draft Charter concerned legislative tracking (and not the broader aspects of Government Engagement) and had elicited some written comments on the substance and the reporting process (which is is on pause while we assess feedback);
Marilyn recognised that the tracking of legislative initiatives and IGO positions was a very helpful undertaking; she hoped that comments would be posted (whether positive or not) and shared with the WG; rather than through a blog;
Mandy confirmed this and will remind the CCWG IG how comments can be made on the proposed “Charter”
On ICANN 65; Olivier noted we were asking for a CCWG IG F2F meeting in conjunction with the Board WG on IG.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4587 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance