Hi Olivier Well, as far as I know the CWG has among its foci the 1net and the Brazil meeting, and in both cases it could be useful to have some shared view if not full consensus as to how the community will interface with these processes. A first order of business in that regard is the messy problem of representation in the 1net coordination group (steering committee is a bad term) and the different SP committees. If every piece of the ICANNsphere says we want xyz position irrespective of mapping with the categories being used, it will quickly get dysfunctional because there are groupings outside ICANN that also want positions, and there’s only a few in each case. So then we could be greatly aggravating an already difficult problem. This is especially so if people start asking Fadi for help; he’s not in any position to tell 1net or the Brazilians how to handle this, and I suspect would not want to be drawn into the matter. Nobody would wish to locally replicate the confused and divisive discussions on the 1net list. But if we don’t address it here, where would we? Or are you suggesting we don’t try and simply bombard 1net and the Brazilians with names and let “them” (whoever that would be in the former case) figure out what to do? Open to whatever people we can have agreement on, but think we should try to get some, somewhere rather than kicking the can to the next level where things are more fraught. Best, Bill On Dec 7, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Bill,
I hear what you are saying and tend to agree with your concerns. However I am concerned about mixing the CCWG & the /1net discussions for fear of duplicating the arguments from the /1net list onto the CCWG list. Many are already very confused about the proliferation of mailing lists too!
The CCWG list is now starting its task list. Identification of delegates from ICANN as a whole to fill the gaps in the Brazil conference should be one of its tasks indeed, but taking into a smaller subset (the CCWG is only ICANN-bound) a discussion that's mobilising a much wider set of people, feels like restricting the debate, not opening it. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/12/2013 07:23, William Drake wrote:
Hello from the peanut gallery,
The problem here is that ICANN’s internal organization doesn’t map with the SG-based divisions used by UN meetings, which is what the wider IG crowd is used to. So juxtaposing it onto the structures envisaged both by 1net (for the coordination group) and for the Brazilian’s (for the SP committees) is square pegs and round holes, which will only complicate the expressions of discontent from business as well as civil society that we’re seeing on the 1net list.
Perhaps thinking through a solution to how to interface should be the first priority of the CWG, as the “seating” of stakeholder reps will move quickly from here—with a lot of debate and push back, I’m afraid.
We need to avoid a train wreck at the front end over who gets to be on what, and especially one resolved by who has the sharpest elbows.
Bill
PS: Olivier if nobody here objects on privacy grounds etc. you wish to forward this thread to the CWG list for wider discussion.
On Dec 7, 2013, at 12:52 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
FYI -- after some discussion with the ALAC Leadership Team and seeing the continuous discussion on the /1net mailing list, I have sent the following enquiry to Adiel Akplogan, AFRINIC CEO and Fadi Chehadé, ICANN CEO. Best regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: A follow-up from the ALAC and LACRALO about the Brasil Conference and 1net Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 00:50:02 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade@icann.org>, "Adiel A. Akplogan" <adiel@afrinic.net> CC: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart@icann.org>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra@icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
ALAC Correspondence: AL-ALAC-CO-1213-1-00-EN
Dear Fadi, Dear Adiel,
in my capacity as ALAC Chair, I am following up on the ICANN week's announcements and progress in Buenos Aires with several requests for clarification, prompted by the At-Large Community.
Please find attached a Statement from our Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Organisation (LACRALO) region published in Buenos Aires on 21 November 2013 asking for several points of clarification regarding /1net and proposing their help in developing the agenda in the region.
Within the past few days, it appears that the process by which the /1net initiative is being implemented, has started with a designation of the people that will make up several organising committees in the run-up to the Brazil conference. Several of my colleagues are voicing concerns that other parts of ICANN are negotiating a position on the committees irrespective of the wider ICANN issue. I would therefore like to make sure the participation of the At-Large Community is not overlooked at the table and would therefore seek your advice on how to go about making sure that this is not the case.
I remind you that the ALAC supported the Montevideo Statement and the proposed Brazil meeting *before* the Bali IGF (See ALAC Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-1013-02-00-EN attached to this email) so this has been on our radar for a long time.
I look forward to your kind reply to transmit to the At-Large Community.
Kind regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
<LACRALO Statement for Brazil Meeting 2014-11-21.pdf><ALAC Correspondence on the proposed Brazil Summit.pdf>_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html