<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
+ 1<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/11/2016 7:39 AM, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH5sTh=sf=yf96LQXr2zEnyMSuQ6WP4bT777Rj+M-SmMBZTfgw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>with regard to CCWG-IG role and tasks, it is better to
check its charter before jumping in some conclusions , you can
find it here <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Charter">https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Charter</a>
. the list of the activities mentioned in the charter:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"• Provide input to ICANN staff, SOs and/or ACs on issues
pertaining to Internet
Governance discussions and processes. </div>
<div>• Provide input to the participating SOs and/or ACs to
ensure such input as
mentioned under a. above is reflected in ICANN’s activities in
discussions and
processes pertaining to Internet Governance. </div>
<div>• Convey to the ICANN community discussions about ICANN or
ICANN matters
that arise in other Internet Governance discussions and
processes. </div>
<div>• Organize SO and AC focused sessions</div>
<div>• Disseminate and summarize information relevant and
related to the Internet
Governance events and processes described above.</div>
<div>• Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed
appropriate, in accordance
with the rules of this Charter"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">ICANN is already involved in several IG
spaces via its staff and participating in different processes
like OECD, CSTD , WSIS+10 review and so on submitting
comments. there was some progress with the staff sharing in
several occasions the submissions for comments and review.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">the CCWG-IG can do more and it needs
more participants to do so, to push for more work like
position papers and statements. there was too much focus on
organizing the IG session at ICANN meeting and it should shift
from that to more substantive deliverable. to alleviate the
concerns , the CCWG is not aimed to have the exclusivity of IG
discussion within ICANN.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">Rafik <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-04-11 17:36 GMT+09:00
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a></a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hi Milton,<br>
<br>
I think almost everything you say below is correct. But in
my eyes this does not lead to the conclusion to close the
CCWG. My conclusion is that we have to re-boot it.<br>
<br>
I agree that the CCWG did a bad job in the last two years.
There was only little innovative outcome. The organized
panels within ICANN meetings were with little audience,
sometimes confusing or overpacked and more (burocratic and
low quality)presentations than creative discussions.<br>
<br>
However to conclude we should close the CCWG (I was not a
member and do not intend to join) would be to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. The CCWG needs a re-booting
after the completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition.
ICANNs involvement in broader IG issues - as you have
described below - is a cross constituency challenge. How
you can develop ICANN "foreign policies" in an isolated
way, leaving it to some activists from some SOs or ACs?<br>
<br>
During the two years of discussion around the IANA
transition, the concept of a CCWG has emerged as a very
robust and useful instrument to discuss and settle issues
which are in the interests of all SOs and ACs. And this is
here the case. Broader IG issues need a cross constituency
discussion platform. I agree that the existing CCWG needs
re-chartered and has to produce more tangible outcome
(recommendations, advice etc). To close it would give the
wrong signal and could have unintended side-effects,
feeding "isolationalism".<br>
<br>
I see this also from a more strategic point of view. When
the IANA transition is completed we have to start a
discussion about restructurung ICANN according to the new
realities which emerged both inside and outside of ICANN
in the 2010s. The existing ICANN structure goes back to
2002. As you remember I introduced in Buenos Aires the
idea to start a discussion about a general restructuring
of ICANN as soon as the transition is completed. I called
it "Workstream 3" and "ICANN 2020" (probably it will need
some years more and "ICANN 2025" is more realistic). We
had a good first BOF in Marrakesh. My vision for a
restructured ICANN would be a three layer model for the
"empowered community":<br>
Layer 1: three SOs (as contracting parties)<br>
Layer 2: four ACs (as stakeholder representative goups
with individual constituencies)<br>
Layer 3: issue based CCWGs (where needed) which can be
created and closed according to the needs.<br>
In this concept a CCWG on IG could be developed into a
platform where all SOs and ACs (and their constituencies)
have a place to discuss how ICANN should design its
"foreign policy".<br>
<br>
Again: My recommendaiton is NOT to close the CCWG but to
reform (re-boot) it.<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
Wolfgang<br>
</font></span>
<div class="">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Wolfgang:<br>
I think almost everything you say below is correct,
but does not really bear on the question whether we
need to continue the CCWG-IG.<br>
<br>
You are asking "how the involvement of ICANN in
broader IG issues should be designed in the future."
Do you really think this CCWG-IG has anything to say
about that?<br>
<br>
Let me recount for you all the ways in which ICANN
people and entities interact with the broader IG
environment whether or not this CCWG exists:<br>
<br>
1. ICANN's board and CEO can and probably will
continue to send staff to WSIS-related meetings, civil
society meetings such as Rightscon, EU and EC
meetings, regional meetings of governments,
cybersecurity seminars and conferences and
intergovernmental meetings, etc. etc. This is a matter
of board policy, not CCWG policy<br>
<br>
2. ICANN constituencies and stakeholder groups will
continue to attend meetings such as IGF, at the
global, regional and local level, and many of these
meetings will be focused broadly on IG and not
narrowly.<br>
<br>
3. CROPP funding will continue to send ICANN
participants to the farther reaches of the IG
environment. The CCWG-IG does not provide or allocate
CROPP funds.<br>
<br>
4. Blogs and news items about the broader environment
(e.g., IGP blog, Circle ID, India's CCG and CIS, CDT)
will be written by and/or read by ICANN people<br>
<br>
5. Summer schools, such as the one you run in Meissen,
and regional ones, will continue to situate ICANN in
the broader context.<br>
<br>
Etc., etc.<br>
<br>
I was struck by Bill Drake's comments about the
CCWG-IG - unlike you, he has labored in it for
sometime, and if he is not all that enthusiastic about
continuing it in its present form, it speaks volumes.<br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org">ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org</a></a>]
On Behalf<br>
> Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<br>
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 11:33 AM<br>
> To: William Drake <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>>;
NCUC-discuss <ncuc-<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@lists.ncuc.org">discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] Replacement
on Cross Community<br>
> WorkingGroup on Internet Governance<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I did not participate in this CCWG. But when I
was in the Board we had various<br>
> discussions how the involvement of ICANN in
broader IG issues should be<br>
> designed in the future (in particular after the
IANA transition). There are two<br>
> schools of thought: One (the isolationsists)
which argue that ICANN should<br>
> more or less ignore what happens ourtside the I*
world. The other group<br>
> argues (and I was part of this group) that there
is a need that ICANN remains<br>
> involved in IGF, WGEC, WSIS (and even in Wuzhen,
FII, NMI, GIGC, GCSC, GFCE<br>
> etc.). Broader Internet Governance is and can not
be ICANNs core business<br>
> and there is a risk of mission creep. But
ignorance and isolation can fire back<br>
> and ICANN can find itself in an unfriendly
environment which could make the<br>
> daily operations of its core business more
complicated if processes start in<br>
> bodies (like UNCSTD or Wuzehn or The Hague) and
Trigger develoopments in<br>
> wrong directions. If ICANN is not present and can
not raise the voice, this can<br>
> happen. Sometimes such processes are difficult to
stop. I called the needed<br>
> ICANN involvement in broader IG issues as an
investment into the protection<br>
> of ICANNs environment. I do also not buy SDB´s
argument that ICANNs<br>
> engagement in the NetMundial was a mistake.
Insofar I propose to continue<br>
> with this CCWG. The ICANN Board needs good advice
from the community<br>
> and a CCWG approach is a good approach to trigger
bottom up developments<br>
> of reasonable positions.<br>
><br>
> Wolfgang<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> etc.+ bve very< s a<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>
> Von: Ncuc-discuss im Auftrag von William Drake<br>
> Gesendet: So 10.04.2016 16:55<br>
> An: NCUC-discuss<br>
> Betreff: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] Replacement
on Cross Community<br>
> WorkingGroup on Internet Governance<br>
><br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
> > On Apr 9, 2016, at 06:19, avri doria <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:avri@apc.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:avri@apc.org">avri@apc.org</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > +1<br>
> ><br>
> > On 08-Apr-16 18:34, Matthew Shears wrote:<br>
> >> I am a firm believer that this CCWG
should exist and it should do so<br>
> >> for a very specific reason:<br>
><br>
><br>
> There has been an on again off again conversation
for about the past year<br>
> about the future of the CCWIG. As I wrote to the
NCSG-PC list in February,<br>
><br>
> >> the CCW-IG was initially set up after
the 2013 BA meeting to provide a<br>
> written input to the NETmundial meeting. Since
then it has drifted with no<br>
> ability to work on common texts of any kind (due
to resistance from various<br>
> biz actors we know), and indeed no ability to
have a coherent discussion of<br>
> this or other matters. By default its sole
activities have turned into a) pressing<br>
> Nigel and Tarek to explain what they say in
intergovernmental settings; and b)<br>
> planning the public IG sessions, which have
turned into MAG-like escapades<br>
> with agenda control games (one guess who) being
played out on weekly<br>
> phone calls typically involving less than a dozen
people.<br>
> >><br>
> >> As the NCSG 'participant' on the CCWIG
I'm inclined to think it should be<br>
> wound down, or turned into a working party. If
people interested in the<br>
> broader IG landscape want a place to talk about
its relevance to ICANN,<br>
> interface with staff who rep ICANN in
intergovernmental spaces, and monkey<br>
> around micromanaging the public IG session, fine,
by why does it need to be a<br>
> chartered CCWG with all the constraints that
implies? If it was a coalition of<br>
> the willing, the group might actually able to say
or do something, as the HR<br>
> group has.<br>
><br>
> I couldn't attend the F2F meeting of the group in
Marrakech<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-ccwg-ig"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-ccwg-ig</a>
as the<br>
> NomCom had a meeting at the same time. But I'm
told this was discussed a<br>
> bit, and that the people in attendance decided
that it should remain a CCWG,<br>
> an organizational form that is apparently
uniquely well suited to the two<br>
> activities mentioned above. So that's where
things rest at the moment.<br>
><br>
> Cheers<br>
><br>
> Bill<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T: +44.771.247.2987
CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.</pre>
</body>
</html>