[NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] Replacement on Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance

[William Drake]

Hi

> On Apr 9, 2016, at 06:19, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> On 08-Apr-16 18:34, Matthew Shears wrote:
>> I am a firm believer that this CCWG should exist and it should do so
>> for a very specific reason:


There has been an on again off again conversation for about the past year about the future of the CCWIG.  As I wrote to the NCSG-PC list in February,

>> the CCW-IG was initially set up after the 2013 BA meeting to provide a written input to the NETmundial meeting.  Since then it has drifted with no ability to work on common texts of any kind (due to resistance from various biz actors we know), and indeed no ability to have a coherent discussion of this or other matters.  By default its sole activities have turned into a) pressing Nigel and Tarek to explain what they say in intergovernmental settings; and b) planning the public IG sessions, which have turned into MAG-like escapades with agenda control games (one guess who) being played out on weekly phone calls typically involving less than a dozen people. 
>> 
>> As the NCSG ‘participant’ on the CCWIG I’m inclined to think it should be wound down, or turned into a working party.  If people interested in the broader IG landscape want a place to talk about its relevance to ICANN, interface with staff who rep ICANN in intergovernmental spaces, and monkey around micromanaging the public IG session, fine, by why does it need to be a chartered CCWG with all the constraints that implies?  If it was a coalition of the willing, the group might actually able to say or do something, as the HR group has…

I couldn’t attend the F2F meeting of the group in Marrakech https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-ccwg-ig  as the NomCom had a meeting at the same time.  But I’m told this was discussed a bit, and that the people in attendance decided that it should remain a CCWG, an organizational form that is apparently uniquely well suited to the two activities mentioned above.  So that’s where things rest at the moment.

Cheers

Bill