[PC-NCSG] Principles for CCWGs => CCW-IG
Matthew Shears
mshears
Thu Mar 3 12:43:16 EET 2016
I would like to see the CCWG-IG spend less time on figuring out what
external events its going to do workshops at and more time determining
where, when and how ICANN should (or not) be engaging in IG processes,
developing the criteria for such engagement, and importantly, suggesting
what ICANN's positions on IG issues should be. The CCWG-IG's work
should primarily comprise recommendations to the Board and community on
what ICANN should be going in the broader IG space and how the
organization should engage in it.
Matthew
On 3/3/2016 3:58 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> same questions here, I don't see clearly the benefit of having of CCWP
> instead of CCWG. both needs some charter and goals setting.
>
> I had discussion with my co-chairs and I think that we can take the
> opportunity of having new CEO and see after he starts his term what he
> can expect from us. the CCWG-IG was formed as response to Fadi idea
> and supposed to give guidance. I raised the point that the group never
> interacted with the board or reported its activities, it is something
> we have to fix (among other tasks of co-chairs). having this in mind,
> we are working on getting things in place and taking some corrective
> actions to move from doing only public session planning.
>
> we submitted workshop proposals before to IGF and WSIS, but we didn't
> replicate the success of drafting a statement as we did for
> netmundial. the relations with ICANN staff is getting improved and
> someone like Nigel is quite cooperative. there are some positive
> things, but a lot of room of improvement. I acknowledge that co-chairs
> are not doing enough and bear the responsibility.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-03-03 4:35 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>:
>
> The charter is here:
> https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Charter?preview=/52888213/53281052/Charter%20ccWG%20IG%202014%20v05.pdf
>
>
> The CCWG is not explicitly linked to NetMundial, it should
> facilitate the information about and involvement in any IG
> process. However, what happened in practice is that after NM the
> CCWG lost momentum and although there is a faithful crowd that
> attends the public sessions, it is not so many people. It is
> serving as a discussion forum to those that participate in ICANN
> but look further to other IG spaces.
>
> On the practical aspect of Bill's message, I do not see clearly
> why a CCWG nature is being an obstacle. Looking back, I do agree
> it should have ben created as a CCWP, but now that it is a CCWG
> should take active steps to change this? In what that would
> benefit the CCWG? Maybe Bill has more insights, I have followed it
> less closely.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mar?lia
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I?m not terribly well informed on the work of the CCWG-IG, and
> was interested to hear the opinions of others in response to
> your question. Since nobody?s offered an answer, may I ask
> another one of my own?
>
> > On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:25 PM, William Drake
> <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > 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.
>
> If that was indeed the reason why the CCWG-IG was set up, was
> this clearly reflected in its charter? I don?t have it handy,
> but I imagine as with any ICANN group, when a group completes
> its mandate, it is then disbanded. In this case, wouldn?t it
> make sense to disband the CCWG-IG altogether since the
> NetMundial meeting has come and gone, as opposed to winding it
> down to a CCWP?
>
> I don?t believe the CCWP-HR has shown progress and success
> because it?s a CCWP. It?s more likely because they have been
> focused on specific objectives since it was established, and
> has worked hard to achieve them.
>
> Anyway?, I?m interested in thoughts on this, and a response to
> Bill?s question as well from others who have been more involved.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mar?lia 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
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
--
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.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160303/ef46c0c6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list