Jonathan and John, The NCSG/ALAC meeting where this idea was proposed started immediately following the Council wrap-up session. It was not, to my knowledge, an initiative born from any invitation of any kind nor imposed by anyone from the “top” or elsewhere. It was more of a discussion amongst civil society actors within the ICANN community to coordinate efforts to ensure NCSG/ALAC representation in whatever process leads up to the Brazil summit (or whatever they’ve decided to call it) in April 2014. In fact, one of the outputs of the meeting was a suggestion to draft a joint NCSG/ALAC letter addressed to Fadi expressing a desire to engage in the process. During the meeting, it was also decided that inviting the broader ICANN community to the discussion using a Wiki as a platform for cross community input on the topic was a good idea. The term “Cross-Community Working Group” was used in an email message on an NCSG list, but I am not aware of any actual WG or drafting team in the pipeline. Just a Wiki-based cross community discussion platform. If this changes, if I learn something I do not know now, or when the Wiki goes online, I’ll be sure to send a note to all of you on the Council list to make sure you’re all informed. Sound good? Thanks. Amr On Nov 27, 2013, at 7:22 PM, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> wrote:

Jonathan,

The work of the drafting team is aimed at creating an aligned PDP and reflects a bottom-up sensibility

This CWG on Internet Governance is more politics than policy and has been imposed from the top,

What I would like to know is who issued the invitation to the ALAC and NCSG, what was the rationale and why the NCSG accepted without consultation with the broader GNSO of which they are a part?

Were other ACs and SOs invited? Did they decline?

I am aware that I am veering toward paranoia, but it's not inappropriate if they are really out to get you.

Cheers,

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

...

All,

At the Council meeting wrap-up in Buenos Aires, we talked about GNSO participation in the CWG on internet governance and the Council and/or GNSO Council chair’s otential role.

At the time, I don’t believe we were aware of the proposed role of ALAC / NCSG as co-ordinators.

I think (from a Council perspective) we should probably now await the call for further participation and respond to that, but I am open to any other suggestions.

We could offer the CWG principles as they currently stand?

Jonathan

Thanks Chuck, Good point. I believe they should have seen them but may not have looked in any detail. In any case, I'll follow up with due care. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 27 November 2013 19:31 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Jonathan, Before offering use of the CWG principles as they stand, it might be a good idea for you to talk to the chairs of other SOs and the ACs to see if they would support that idea or if they would want to modify those principles in any way. Some of them probably haven't seen those principles so they should be sent to them first. An early action item for the group might be to review those principles and decide whether they would work or whether they may need to be modified for this effort. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:04 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues All, At the Council meeting wrap-up in Buenos Aires, we talked about GNSO participation in the CWG on internet governance and the Council and/or GNSO Council chair's otential role. At the time, I don't believe we were aware of the proposed role of ALAC / NCSG as co-ordinators. I think (from a Council perspective) we should probably now await the call for further participation and respond to that, but I am open to any other suggestions. We could offer the CWG principles as they currently stand? Jonathan