Dear Councilors- Unfortunately, we ran short of time during the last Council meeting to discuss agenda item 7 (Council Discussion – Next Steps for the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance). Some Councilors questioned why this item was on the agenda at all. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful to explain why the leadership added this topic to the agenda and our expected next steps: * As you may recall, the CWG-IG provided a status update that was reviewed and discussed by the Council in Helsinki (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf). Note that the CWG-IG charter foresees that ‘The Co-Chairs of the WG shall update the participating SO’s and AC’s at least monthly on the activities of the WG’ and ‘The Co-Chairs will be responsible for maintaining and updating the work plan and schedule and for informing the Chairs of the participating SO’s and AC’s of changes made to the work plan and schedule’. * In light of the work of the CWG Principles, which foresees CWGs having a clear start and end, many have questioned whether a CWG is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with IG issues, as the current objective of the CWG (as described in its charter) is ‘to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of the ICANN community in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance’. * The CWG-IG Charter foresees that ‘At each ICANN Annual General Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be reviewed by the participating SO’s and AC’s to determine whether the WG should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the participating SO’s or AC’s extend the Charter of the WG and notify the other participating SO’s and AC’s accordingly one month after the annual review date’. * The GNSO is therefore expected to review and decide by ICANN57 whether to extend its support for the charter of the CWG-IG. * In order to be in a position to make this determination by ICANN57, this item was added to the Council agenda to obtain feedback from Councilors/SG/Cs on what further information, if any, is needed from the CWG-IG. I propose that this final bullet point become the focal point of our discussions (list or teleconference) on this topic. If Councilors are satisfied that they, along with the leadership of their respective SGs and Cs, are capable of deciding on continued GNSO support for the CCWG-IG charter by ICANN57, then it may not be necessary to revisit this topic again until our sessions in Hyderabad. If not, we should include this discussion on our next Council agenda to ensure that all open questions are addressed. Regards, J.