[PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG

[William Drake]

Hi

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 01:15, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> some history here it is process initiated by GNSO itself in 2012 following the undue heat about the joint working group on new gTLD applicant support between GNSO and ALAC (there were other joint WGs like the ones with SSAC and ccNSO about Internationalized Registration  data and one about IDN , and they were are quite restricted). 

Yes there was quite the unpleasant brouhaha within the GNSO about the applicant support group, which led to call to define criteria and procedures for CCWGs.
> 
> I think for some (non-PDP) topics it makes to have other SO/AC involved. for GNSO PDP, GNSO is setting its own working group with open membership

Sure, but the question is in what form.  Which brings me to question that?s been percolating for awhile and may finally get discussed in Marrakech: 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...

Unfortunately I can?t attend the F2F meeting where this will be discussed https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-ccwg-ig because there?s a public NomCom meeting scheduled at the same time (as is the GNSO-Non-PDP CCWG Principles Cross Community Working Group) but if there?s any sense of the group to convey I can do it in writing, or one of our others people could--- Marilia, Stephanie and Pranesh are NCUC participants, Cintra and Rudi are NPOC participants, and Rafik?s a co-chair.  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275 

Anyone have any thoughts or preferences in this regard?

Bill