Dear All, Please find below a message from Olivier Crépin-Leblond concerning the CWG on Internet Governance. Best regards, Marika From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date: Wednesday 11 May 2016 at 16:52 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo@gmail.com>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@icann.org>, Desiree Cabrera <desiree.cabrera@icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, "Carlos Raúl G." <crg@isoc-cr.org> Subject: Fwd: Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update Dear Marika, please be so kind to find my personal response to Carlos's report to the GNSO Council which I would kindly ask you to share with the Council ahead of tomorrow's Council call. Although I would have the ability to post it myself directly, this ability is granted on the basis of my involvement as ALAC Liaison and I do not wish to mix roles/responsibilities. I believe that the explanation I provide below might help with deliberations and indeed shorten them so we can focus on questions from Councillors and not the initial explanation on the usefulness of the CCWG-IG. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Co-Chair CCWG-IG -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: CWG on Internet Governance - status update Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:39:51 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> <mailto:ocl@gih.com> To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org> <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> , Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> CC: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> <mailto:ocl@gih.com> Dear Carlos, thanks for the follow-up. I'll add Rafik to my response as I think it is important that we are all on the same page. I'll quote from the ALAC Statement in response to the Public Consultation by the CCWG on CCWGs. "At present, several apparently less formal structures exist: * Cross Community Working Party: The Cross Community Working Party on ICANN's Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights (CCWP-HR) uses this type of structure. It does not require chartering by any SO/AC and serves as a good platform for discussion, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is undefined. For example, the CCWP-HR is supported by the GNSO. * Cross Community Committee: The Cross Community Committee on Accessibility uses this type of structure, but the nature of its relationship with SOs/ACs is also undefined. * Other Review Groups, like the Geographic Regions Working Group and IDN Variant TLD Issues Project, etc. The nature of relationship with SOs & ACs is undefined as they are related directly to an ICANN-wide process that is often Board or Staff driven (in the case of an implementation project). In the above cases where the structure is not chartered by SOs and ACs, how each structure makes formal recommendations to SOs, ACs and/or the ICANN Board is not specifically defined." That's exactly the problem I have with redifining the CCWG-IG into another structure that has no formal relationship with chartering organisations. The CCWG-IG is working on pretty high level topics and has acted outside of ICANN on several occasions: - submission of a Statement at NetMundial - organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2015 - organisation of a workshop at IGF 2015 - organisation of a workshop at WSIS Forum 2016 Working Group members have also advised Staff on ICANN's contributions to ITU, WSIS+10, CSTD, IGF MAG and other wider Internet Governance issues. So far, the modus operandi was that Staff drafts the text and working group members provide a response, comments and suggestions. Timelines have always been so short (we are sometimes looking a 15 day turnover for a consultation, giving the CCWG-IG members at most 4 or 5 days to provide input). It is very likely in the foreseeable future that the CCWG-IG members could draft a longer statement to be submitted outside of ICANN, in line with Staff input into the processes. This is very likely to require ratification of the CCWG-IG chartering organisations. I am specifically speaking of the forthcoming big challenge of the year, WTSA16. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/wtsa16/Pages/default.aspx Signals are coming from several directions that irrespective of the ITU's recommendations at plenipotentiary last year, irrespective of the NetMundial Principles, irrespective of the collapse of the WCIT-12, the same group of nations that caused a clash in the past on topics of multi-stakeholder vs. multilateral governance, Country Internet Registries, Jurisdiction of the Root and having Governments and the ITU take a bigger active role in the running of Critical Internet Resources, are coming back with the same agenda. More than just a case of "wash, rince, repeat", there are stronger and stronger arguments for Country Internet Registries thus abolishing the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and allocating IP addresses via a UN process on a per country basis, such allocation being done by a country's government regulation agency, in-line with what used to be done in the times of Telecommunication Monopolies. When coupled with the discussions on Root jurisdiction and cases for re-centering of policy from being multistakeholder back to National Government agencies in a multi-lateral way, we are looking at a very significant threat to the IANA functions and other functions that ICANN is currently assuming. It is my belief that any Statement which ICANN is practically guaranteed to have to submit (this is not a case of "if we cross the bridge", but "when we cross the bridge"), will carry much more weight for the defenders of the multi-stakeholder model if the Statement is not only submitted by ICANN Staff, but is also ratified and supported by the ICANN Communities in a multi-stakeholder manner. At present, a CCWG structure provides for an easy channel to solicit support from its chartering organisations. Any other structure is a big unknown. I hope this helps with your understanding of the critical challenges we face today. The CCWG-IG is not just some empty shell, it is a grouping of the best minds we have at ICANN when it comes to Internet Governance, and it would be unwise to turn our backs on it. Kindest regards, Olivier