<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div><div><div>Dear All, </div><div><br></div><div>Please find below a message from Olivier Crépin-Leblond concerning the CWG on Internet Governance.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Marika</div><div><div>
<!--EndFragment--></div><!--EndFragment--></div></div></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Wednesday 11 May 2016 at 16:52<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>>, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>, Young-eum Lee <<a href="mailto:yesunhoo@gmail.com">yesunhoo@gmail.com</a>>, Nigel Hickson <<a href="mailto:nigel.hickson@icann.org">nigel.hickson@icann.org</a>>, Desiree Cabrera <<a href="mailto:desiree.cabrera@icann.org">desiree.cabrera@icann.org</a>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>>, "Carlos Raúl G." <<a href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org">crg@isoc-cr.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Fwd: Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Marika,<br><br>
please be so kind to find my personal response to Carlos's report to the GNSO Council which I would kindly ask you to share with the Council ahead of tomorrow's Council call. Although I would have the ability to post it myself directly, this ability is granted
on the basis of my involvement as ALAC Liaison and I do not wish to mix roles/responsibilities.<br>
I believe that the explanation I provide below might help with deliberations and indeed shorten them so we can focus on questions from Councillors and not the initial explanation on the usefulness of the CCWG-IG.<br><br>
Kindest regards,<br><br>
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond<br>
Co-Chair CCWG-IG<br><div class="moz-forward-container"><br><br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th><td>Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update</td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th><td>Wed, 11 May 2016 13:39:51 +0100</td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th><td>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">
<ocl@gih.com></a></td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th><td>Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org">
<crg@isoc-cr.org></a>, Rafik Dammak <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">
<rafik.dammak@gmail.com></a></td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th><td>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">
<ocl@gih.com></a></td></tr></tbody></table><br><br>
Dear Carlos,<br><br>
thanks for the follow-up. I'll add Rafik to my response as I think it is important that we are all on the same page.<br><br>
I'll quote from the ALAC Statement in response to the Public Consultation by the CCWG on CCWGs.<br><br><p>"<font color="#3366ff">At present, several apparently less formal structures exist:</font></p><ul><li><font color="#3366ff">Cross Community Working Party: The Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights (CCWP-HR) uses this type of structure. It does not require chartering by any SO/AC and serves as
a good platform for discussion, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is undefined. For example, the CCWP-HR is supported by the GNSO.</font></li><li><font color="#3366ff">Cross Community Committee: The Cross Community Committee on Accessibility uses this type of structure, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is also undefined.</font></li><li><font color="#3366ff">Other Review Groups, like the Geographic Regions Working Group and IDN Variant TLD Issues Project, etc. The nature of relationship with SOs & ACs is undefined as they are related directly to an ICANN-wide process that is often Board
or Staff driven (in the case of an implementation project).</font> </li></ul><font color="#3366ff">In the above cases where the structure is not chartered by SOs and ACs, how each structure makes formal recommendations to SOs, ACs and/or the ICANN Board is not specifically defined.</font>"<br><br>
That's exactly the problem I have with redifining the CCWG-IG into another structure that has no formal relationship with chartering organisations. The CCWG-IG is working on pretty high level topics and has acted outside of ICANN on several occasions:<br>
- submission of a Statement at NetMundial<br>
- organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2015<br>
- organisation of a workshop at IGF 2015<br>
- organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2016<br><br>
Working Group members have also advised Staff on ICANN's contributions to ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF MAG and other wider Internet Governance issues. So far, the modus operandi was that Staff drafts the text and working group members provide a response, comments
and suggestions. Timelines have always been so short (we are sometimes looking a 15 day turnover for a consultation, giving the CCWG-IG members at most 4 or 5 days to provide input). It is very likely in the foreseeable future that the CCWG-IG members could
draft a longer statement to be submitted outside of ICANN, in line with Staff input into the processes. This is very likely to require ratification of the CCWG-IG chartering organisations.<br><br>
I am specifically speaking of the forthcoming big challenge of the year, WTSA16. <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/wtsa16/Pages/default.aspx">
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/wtsa16/Pages/default.aspx</a><br><br>
Signals are coming from several directions that irrespective of the ITU's recommendations at plenipotentiary last year, irrespective of the NetMundial Principles, irrespective of the collapse of the WCIT-12, the same group of nations that caused a clash in
the past on topics of multi-stakeholder vs. multilateral governance, Country Internet Registries, Jurisdiction of the Root and having Governments and the ITU take a bigger active role in the running of Critical Internet Resources, are coming back with the
same agenda. More than just a case of "wash, rince, repeat", there are stronger and stronger arguments for Country Internet Registries thus abolishing the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and allocating IP addresses via a UN process on a per country basis,
such allocation being done by a country's government regulation agency, in-line with what used to be done in the times of Telecommunication Monopolies. When coupled with the discussions on Root jurisdiction and cases for re-centering of policy from being multistakeholder
back to National Government agencies in a multi-lateral way, we are looking at a very significant threat to the IANA functions and other functions that ICANN is currently assuming.<br>
It is my belief that any Statement which ICANN is practically guaranteed to have to submit (this is not a case of "if we cross the bridge", but "when we cross the bridge"), will carry much more weight for the defenders of the multi-stakeholder model if the
Statement is not only submitted by ICANN Staff, but is also ratified and supported by the ICANN Communities in a multi-stakeholder manner.
<br>
At present, a CCWG structure provides for an easy channel to solicit support from its chartering organisations. Any other structure is a big unknown.<br><br>
I hope this helps with your understanding of the critical challenges we face today. The CCWG-IG is not just some empty shell, it is a grouping of the best minds we have at ICANN when it comes to Internet Governance, and it would be unwise to turn our backs
on it.<br><br>
Kindest regards,<br><br>
Olivier<br><br><br><br></div><br></div></div></span></body></html>