[NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] Replacement on Cross Community WorkingGroup on Internet Governance
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Mon Apr 11 14:06:41 CEST 2016
+ 1
On 4/11/2016 7:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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
> https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Charter . the
> list of the activities mentioned in the charter:
>
> "• Provide input to ICANN staff, SOs and/or ACs on issues pertaining
> to Internet Governance discussions and processes.
> • 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.
> • Convey to the ICANN community discussions about ICANN or ICANN
> matters that arise in other Internet Governance discussions and
> processes.
> • Organize SO and AC focused sessions
> • Disseminate and summarize information relevant and related to the
> Internet Governance events and processes described above.
> • Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate, in
> accordance with the rules of this Charter"
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-04-11 17:36 GMT+09:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
> <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>:
>
>
> Hi Milton,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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".
>
> 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":
> Layer 1: three SOs (as contracting parties)
> Layer 2: four ACs (as stakeholder representative goups with
> individual constituencies)
> Layer 3: issue based CCWGs (where needed) which can be created and
> closed according to the needs.
> 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".
>
> Again: My recommendaiton is NOT to close the CCWG but to reform
> (re-boot) it.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> Wolfgang:
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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:
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 5. Summer schools, such as the one you run in Meissen, and
> regional ones, will continue to situate ICANN in the broader context.
>
> Etc., etc.
>
> 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.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>] On Behalf
> > Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 11:33 AM
> > To: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>; NCUC-discuss <ncuc-
> > discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] Replacement on Cross Community
> > WorkingGroup on Internet Governance
> >
> > 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160411/ca9159bd/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list