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

Fri Jul 14 10:31:19 EEST 2017

Hi all,

I share sentiments with some your comments. Seems like we all agree that in
principle the IG WG or community needs to remain in existence, within ICANN
structures and still be inclusive of all communities within ICANN, for
common position. But it can also be possible to have conflicting views and
difficulty in reaching consensus on topical issues, like GAC perspectives,
commercial groups interests and non commercial groups concerns; for
instance, affecting how ICANN and communities are represented in the IG
fora. Platforms and sessions within various ICANN meeting will be of course
seen as "High interest" by all communities.

At the same time, closing off the CCWG-IG limits the voice and presence of
NCUC in the IG fora, unless strategies are developed on how different
communities can still have an independent voice that represents their own
constituency within the IG space. Just my thoughts!!!

Thato

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess it might make sense to focus a group on pure Internet Governance
> that not only focus on Internet Governance but work in that line with IGF
> and OECD etc., perhaps with with what read from the thread. It seems ICANN
> is not doing enough. I do teach Internet Governance and i also have done
> the ISOC and Diplo courses on IG. IN a way i may agree that the need for IG
> is a must for all members. I am sure many lose track of the history or
> future and each group is focussing mainly on their areas.
>
> Am not sure we propose to change the charter of the CCWG-IG or we create a
> new one with a pure focus on IG. Would the board accept such an intention?
>
> SO i would like to say sorry for my ignorance but that is true we do need
> to appraise members on IG in a proper way not the IGF way.
>
> But i rest my thoughts here to see what others suggest. This is just my
> thinking process following the thread. But there are other things that the
> accountability group needs to pversee but thats another story.
>
> Kris
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ... 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>
>    - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170714/3005777c/attachment.htm>