[council] FW: CWG on Internet Governance - status update

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Wed May 11 16:43:11 UTC 2016

Dear All, 

Please find below a message from Olivier Crépin-Leblond concerning the CWG
on Internet Governance.

Best regards,


From:  Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Date:  Wednesday 11 May 2016 at 16:52
To:  Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc:  "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Rafik Dammak
<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo at gmail.com>, Nigel Hickson
<nigel.hickson at icann.org>, Desiree Cabrera <desiree.cabrera at icann.org>,
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, "Carlos Raúl G." <crg at isoc-cr.org>
Subject:  Fwd: Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update

Dear Marika,

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.
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.

Kindest regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
Co-Chair CCWG-IG

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:39:51 +0100
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>
To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org> <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org> ,
Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
CC: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>

Dear Carlos,

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.

I'll quote from the ALAC Statement in response to the Public Consultation by
the CCWG on CCWGs.

"At present, several apparently less formal structures exist:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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).
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."

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:
- submission of a Statement at NetMundial
- organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2015
- organisation of a workshop at IGF 2015
- organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2016

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.

I am specifically speaking of the forthcoming big challenge of the year,
WTSA16. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/wtsa16/Pages/default.aspx

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.
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.
At present, a CCWG structure provides for an easy channel to solicit support
from its chartering organisations. Any other structure is a big unknown.

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.

Kindest regards,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160511/67d7964f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160511/67d7964f/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list