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

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Hi

+1 for Matthew and Wolfgang points on the continuation of the working group.

I`ve also already sent directly to Bill an email thanking him for his
efforts and I would add that Marilia`s presence in this group is also
very welcoming for the very few of us from LAC participating there.

My criticism to this group was that it should be more diverse in its
panels, but this is an all over request in ICANN. Farzaneh Badii`s
contributions there were also notable and a change on this arena. The
presence of Rafik as co-chair is also very important.

The dilemmas within the group when obstacles continue to be posed by
some of its actors, as Bill mentioned, could be solved via
subcommittee or subgroups. The idea was already proposed there, not
sure why it did not move forward.

I am a newcomer but I not many of my contributions there most of the
times, I am not the only one and this is probably not the only space
this happens in ICANN. Even so, I believe the group may be one of the
spaces where ICANN can integrate more views, while also participating
in other debates, a bridge to communicate to the rest of the world (or
at least IG world). And I would still suggest the key debate on
fragmentation also continues there and this focus gets support from
NCUC. It did on SSIG as the students created working groups that
continue to go on.

Best,

Renata


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
> I strongly support the positions of Wolfgang and William and even more
> supportive of Ed's school of thought for a rejig of the entire
> representation since it has been a while but the importance of ICANN
> presence in IG sector cannot be over emphasised.
>
> @Bill, many thanks for this expose, it has to do with a progressive mind.
>
> Remmy Nweke
>
> ____
> REMMY NWEKE,  Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
> DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd [Multiple-award winning medium]
> (DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet)
> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
> NDSF 2016 June 2-3 @Digital Bridge Institute (DBI), (former NITEL Training
> School) NITEL Road, Cappa - Oshodi, Lagos
> _________________________________________________________________
> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments
> are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only
> for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal
> responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do
> not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any
> copies. Violators may face court persecution.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>