CCWG-IG/ Do we want a CCWG on Internet Governance?

[Olévié Kouami]

... Hi all.
Because we all are part of the IG. So a CCWG is necessary inside ICANN
ecosystem.
My 2 XOF
Olevie
Le 14 juil. 2017 08:43, a écrit :

> Yes, we want.
> Le 14 juil. 2017 06:48, "Michael Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Forgive my belated reply. I largely agree with everything that has been
>> said so far. I consider myself an active member of the CCWG-IG because I
>> see the value of its work, but I'm not wedded to the current structure. It
>> would be good to continue having such a space within ICANN, especially
>> because I see myself being less involved in the domain space per se in the
>> future but still seeing the value of what ICANN contributes to the
>> ecosystem as a whole.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Rafik, my impression as an outsider looking in at the ICANN
>>> Twitter account is that the organisation sponsors many events, many of
>>> which have only a loose connection to ICANN's mission. This is not to
>>> suggest that ICANN should not sponsor these events, but I would like to see
>>> a list of which events are being sponsored by ICANN, whether the support is
>>> in kind or in cash, and which staff are traveling to these fora and for
>>> what purpose. If the CCWG-IG is not place for this to happen, I wonder
>>> where might be?
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG-IG/ Do we want a CCWG on Internet
>>> Governance?
>>> Local Time: July 4, 2017 12:50 PM
>>> UTC Time: July 4, 2017 11:50 AM
>>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> the CCWG-IG works closely with the Government engagement team from
>>> ICANN, which is under Tarek Kamel responsibility. it is the team which
>>> submits all comments, input to different IG related processes like CSTD,
>>> OECD etc and tasked to handle IG related issues for ICANN.
>>>
>>> my understanding that sponsoring and supporting different events you are
>>> mentioning are done by other staff and departments such as Global
>>> Stakeholder Engagement division and they are not necessarily meant
>>> endorsing specific positions by the organization. I recall the Board
>>> working group on IG discussing ICANN financial support of IGF and national
>>> and regional IGFs and that is related indeed to IG. I am not sure that is
>>> the role of the CCWG-IG  in overseeing ALL events supported or funded by
>>> ICANN
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-07-02 2:08 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for this update, Farzaneh. I was struck by how few people
>>>> attended the CCWG-IG’s meeting in Johannesburg last week, and by how little
>>>> of substance was on the agenda. I am also on its mailing list and it seems
>>>> to me to be excessively focused on submitting workshop proposals for the
>>>> IGF and WSIS. Personally I would like to see more reporting back to the
>>>> CCWG-IG by ICANN staff of their involvement in external fora, and more
>>>> involvement of the CCWG-IG in holding ICANN staff accountable for what they
>>>> are advocating for and doing outside ICANN. I do not think that happens to
>>>> a sufficient level at the moment. Take a look at the ICANN Twitter account
>>>> at how many events ICANN apparently sponsors, many of which seem to have
>>>> little to no relevance to Internet governance, and look at the very few
>>>> reports back to the community that ICANN staff provide.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: CCWG-IG/ Do we want a CCWG on Internet Governance?
>>>> Local Time: June 29, 2017 1:14 PM
>>>> UTC Time: June 29, 2017 12:14 PM
>>>> From: farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM
>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> As you know I am the NCSG rep on CCWG-IG. Here is an update on the
>>>> status of CCWG-IG.
>>>>
>>>> As a background ( and Bill can correct me if I am not right) CCWG-IG
>>>> was created a couple of years ago and has made statements on Netmundial and
>>>> been active on raising awareness about IANA transition and ICANN
>>>> accountability in the IG environment. People perceive its work as an
>>>> awareness raising group which should bridge the gap between ICANN staff and
>>>> Community regarding their IG related activities and also be mindful of
>>>> statements from Intergovernmental organizations that might meddle with
>>>> ICANN mandate.
>>>>
>>>> It usually organizes workshops at IGF, WSIS and other forums. ICANN
>>>> staff has been very cooperative (especially Nigel Hickson) and are eager to
>>>> work with the community for arranging such sessions. We also plan to be
>>>> engaged with Board more.
>>>> Find their report and charter: https://community.ica
>>>> nn.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275
>>>>
>>>> There is, however, some controversy going on. Some groups are not happy
>>>> with the work of ccwg-ig. Even after ccwg modified its charter to
>>>> streamline its activities and its objectives, they still believe that CCWG
>>>> might not be the right format for such activities. Some believe that
>>>> CCWG-IG receives funding for its travel to various IG venues, which is not
>>>> true. There is no funding for travel allocated to CCWG-IG.
>>>>
>>>> It has gotten to a point that we should now consult with our
>>>> communities about whether CCWG-IG should continue its work and under what
>>>> circumstances it should do so.
>>>>
>>>> Lets have a conversation about it here and I will compile your comments
>>>> and relay them to the group.
>>>>
>>>> My opinion is that, CCWG-IG's members and participants should be active
>>>> and should relay the work to their respective community. In many instances,
>>>> when it comes to writing proposals and statements, very few people engage
>>>> with activities. I think that has to be corrected. But I don't know how.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170714/b2c194e8/attachment.htm>