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

Amr Elsadr aelsadr at egyptig.org
Tue Apr 12 15:43:37 CEST 2016 

Hi,

I’m finding this discussion to be very useful and timely, considering that a similar discussion will take place on Thursday’s GNSO Council call.

I do have one question that I would appreciate be clarified; does the NCUC appoint members to this CCWG? I was under the impression that the GNSO, as one of the supporting organisations, may appoint up to six members to the CCWG-IG, and that those appointed from noncommercial are appointed by the NCSG, not NCUC. The participant/observer list (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275) doesn’t make any clear distinction between members and participants that I can discern, however, some listed participants have their affiliation declared as NCSG, NCUC or NPOC.

Not necessarily relevant to this discussion, but I would appreciate some insight.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 12:22 PM, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:
> 
> Hil Marilia
> 
>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 17:18, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello everyone, 
>> 
>> I have participated in the CCWG since the beginning and I agree with most of the points raised by Wolfgang and with the need to reboot the CCWG. In addition to what has been said, I can tell you that the CCWG has been the only viable instrument to keep ICANN staff accountable and transparent about what they do outside ICANN. I doubt that a less empowered structure would have the capacity to "force" staff to be as transparent as they have been as to keep taking community onboard in the crafting of external messages. Moreover, I think that in a time of CEO transition (we do not know how proactive he will be in ICANN's external relations) it would be particularly bad to lose this channel of pressure. 
> 
> I guess I have a different view. The relevant staff do a good job representing the organization in intergovernmental settings and have been keen to work with the community and get its input.  It’s not obvious that the community needs a formally chartered working group to ‘force’ them to do this and that we’d not have the same relationship if it were a working party.  The main effect of being a working group has been that certain business actors have been able to block any discussions of joint activity like position papers etc. on the grounds that there wouldn’t be consensus among the chartering groups to act.     
> 
> The latter claim has been hard to assess because in reality most of the @ 180 mail list subscribers from the chartering groups don’t participate beyond lurking on the list and showing up in the audiences for the Public IG Sessions.  Especially since the transition process got going, the reality of this ‘cross community’ configuration has been that 90% of the active participation—e.g. on the weekly calls and in the planning of the two sessions per ICANN meeting---has been by a couple handfuls of people from NCUC, At Large, and the Business Constituency.  A quick scan of the mail list archive since then seems to suggest that @ 50% of the messages have been from 3 or 4 people, and if you added staff it’d probably be more like six people and 75%.
> 
> In any event, most of these active participants appear to want to keep it as a CCWG.  Reasonable people can differ as to whether this is the right call, but that’s where we are.  I have never heard anyone who is involved suggest that the thing be shut down, and as we’ve seen in this discussion the NCUC members who bother to participate don’t want that.  So my suggestion would be to replenish the group with fresh representation and inter alia suggest consideration of the same for the leadership.  That might help.
>> 
>> This rebooting should be conducted not only on a substantive level - by the way the CCWG did agree in Marrakech that we will have calls to discuss substance separately from operational calls, which have taken most of our time. The reboot should also take place on the level of participation. The reason why some members of other stakeholder groups got away with influencing the process so heavily is that extremely knowledgeable people of our own constituency have not participated. I understand there were too many processes needing our attention. But with the transition behind us, maybe it is time for us to re-distribute tasks. 
> 
> Here again I’m not sure I agree with the diagnosis.  Regular participants in the process from our side over the past couple years have included e.g. you, Matt, Wolfgang, Avri, Rafik, and myself, all of whom participate extensively in the intergovernmental settings the group tends to focus on.  So I don’t believe we lack expertise or that this is why other stakeholders—one, really---have been able to prevent consensus on action.  I think this has more to do with how the CCWG structure works and the way the meetings have been chaired.
> 
> And BTW, while there there’s been some quick dismissals bandied about, I don’t think it is true that all the sessions organized by the CCWG have been braindead etc.  Some have been pretty good and informative for people who don’t follow all the intergovernmental stuff, and some have not.  The weak ones, like Marrakech, mostly resulted from inadequate strategic coordination to ensure that other folks don’t get to hijack things to suit their agendas.  It’d be good if the new group of NCUC reps coordinated more internally and with other like-minded stakeholders who are at least nominally involved so there’d be a Greek chorus of no’s in the seconds between unhelpful ideas being put on the table and the chair pronouncing consensus.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
>> 
>> I think Bill made an excellent move to kick-start the refreshing of our representation. I agree that a new selection for all NCUC places should be conducted.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Marília
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> Thx. Rafik,
>> 
>> this helps. I did not check the Charter (sorry!). As it stands now the only thing which is needed is more tangible output.
>> 
>> w
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Ncuc-discuss im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak
>> Gesendet: Mo 11.04.2016 13:39
>> An: NCUC-discuss
>> Betreff: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] Replacement on Cross Community WorkingGroup on Internet Governance
>> 
>> 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>:
>> 
>> >
>> > 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] On
>> > Behalf
>> > > Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> > > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 11:33 AM
>> > > To: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>; NCUC-discuss <ncuc-
>> > > 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> 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
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Marília Maciel
>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> *************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> *************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list