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

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi,

I did not participate in this CCWG. But when I was in the Board we had various discussions how the involvement of ICANN in broader IG issues should be designed in the future (in particular after the IANA transition). There are two schools of thought: One (the isolationsists) which argue that ICANN should more or less ignore what happens ourtside the I* world. The other group argues (and I was part of this group) that there is a need that ICANN remains involved in IGF, WGEC, WSIS (and even in Wuzhen, FII, NMI, GIGC, GCSC, GFCE etc.). Broader Internet Governance is and can not be ICANNs core business and there is a risk of mission creep. But ignorance and isolation can fire back and ICANN can find itself in an unfriendly environment which could make the daily operations of its core business more complicated if processes start in bodies (like UNCSTD or Wuzehn or The Hague) and Trigger develoopments in wrong directions. If ICANN is not present and can not raise the voice, this can happen. Sometimes such processes are difficult to stop. I called the needed ICANN involvement in broader IG issues as an investment into the protection of ICANNs environment. I do also not buy SDB´s argument that ICANNs engagement in the NetMundial was a mistake. Insofar I propose to continue with this CCWG. The ICANN Board needs good advice from the community and a CCWG approach is a good approach to trigger bottom up developments of reasonable positions. 

Wolfgang

    

  etc.+ bve very<  s a 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ncuc-discuss im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: So 10.04.2016 16:55
An: NCUC-discuss
Betreff: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] Replacement on Cross Community WorkingGroup on Internet Governance
 
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
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss