Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Hi I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it. In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling. Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech. I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate. Thanks, avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues 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 Amr & Avri, I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station. Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context. Jonathan From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Hi I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it. In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling. Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech. I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate. Thanks, avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues 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" < <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> 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
hi all, this is helpful discussion indeed. i'm getting ready to forward this thread to several people and think it would be helpful to have a few things included. can somebody chime in with: - a link to the wiki page that Amr mentioned - a pointer to any kind of a charter that the group has started to work on - suggestions as to the best way for interested SG/C's to indicate their interest in participating i think part of what's going on is that a) things are moving fast and b) the rules of the road aren't clear yet. i don't feel that i'm qualified to participate in the "content" part of the "get ready for Brazil" effort, but i would be happy to assist with slapping together a quick charter if Rafik, Olivier and others would find that helpful. here's a link to a series of chartering questions i've cobbled together over the years that might be useful in crafting a charter, whether i'm involved in that or not (many of you have seen these before). http://www.haven2.com/index.php/tools/mikeys-pretty-good-project-definition-... thanks all, mikey On Nov 28, 2013, at 4:33 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Amr & Avri,
I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station.
Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context.
Jonathan
From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Hi
I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it.
In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling.
Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.
I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate.
Thanks,
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
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
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi Mikey, The Wiki page hasn’t been set up yet, but should be soon. I also recommend you contact Rafik and Olivier directly and volunteer to participate in drafting a charter. That would be great of you, and I can’t see why they wouldn’t think so too. I’m sure it’ll be a better charter if you’re involved. Thanks. Amr On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
this is helpful discussion indeed. i'm getting ready to forward this thread to several people and think it would be helpful to have a few things included. can somebody chime in with:
- a link to the wiki page that Amr mentioned
- a pointer to any kind of a charter that the group has started to work on
- suggestions as to the best way for interested SG/C's to indicate their interest in participating
i think part of what's going on is that a) things are moving fast and b) the rules of the road aren't clear yet. i don't feel that i'm qualified to participate in the "content" part of the "get ready for Brazil" effort, but i would be happy to assist with slapping together a quick charter if Rafik, Olivier and others would find that helpful. here's a link to a series of chartering questions i've cobbled together over the years that might be useful in crafting a charter, whether i'm involved in that or not (many of you have seen these before).
http://www.haven2.com/index.php/tools/mikeys-pretty-good-project-definition-...
thanks all,
mikey
On Nov 28, 2013, at 4:33 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Amr & Avri,
I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station.
Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context.
Jonathan
From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Hi
I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it.
In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling.
Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.
I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate.
Thanks,
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
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
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
hi Amr, i've done as you suggest and got a bite. :-) thanks, mikey On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Mikey,
The Wiki page hasn’t been set up yet, but should be soon. I also recommend you contact Rafik and Olivier directly and volunteer to participate in drafting a charter. That would be great of you, and I can’t see why they wouldn’t think so too. I’m sure it’ll be a better charter if you’re involved.
Thanks.
Amr
On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
this is helpful discussion indeed. i'm getting ready to forward this thread to several people and think it would be helpful to have a few things included. can somebody chime in with:
- a link to the wiki page that Amr mentioned
- a pointer to any kind of a charter that the group has started to work on
- suggestions as to the best way for interested SG/C's to indicate their interest in participating
i think part of what's going on is that a) things are moving fast and b) the rules of the road aren't clear yet. i don't feel that i'm qualified to participate in the "content" part of the "get ready for Brazil" effort, but i would be happy to assist with slapping together a quick charter if Rafik, Olivier and others would find that helpful. here's a link to a series of chartering questions i've cobbled together over the years that might be useful in crafting a charter, whether i'm involved in that or not (many of you have seen these before).
http://www.haven2.com/index.php/tools/mikeys-pretty-good-project-definition-...
thanks all,
mikey
On Nov 28, 2013, at 4:33 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Amr & Avri,
I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station.
Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context.
Jonathan
From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Hi
I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it.
In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling.
Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.
I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate.
Thanks,
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
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
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Glad to hear it Mikey. ;-) Amr On Nov 28, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi Amr,
i've done as you suggest and got a bite. :-)
thanks,
mikey
On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Mikey,
The Wiki page hasn’t been set up yet, but should be soon. I also recommend you contact Rafik and Olivier directly and volunteer to participate in drafting a charter. That would be great of you, and I can’t see why they wouldn’t think so too. I’m sure it’ll be a better charter if you’re involved.
Thanks.
Amr
On Nov 28, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
this is helpful discussion indeed. i'm getting ready to forward this thread to several people and think it would be helpful to have a few things included. can somebody chime in with:
- a link to the wiki page that Amr mentioned
- a pointer to any kind of a charter that the group has started to work on
- suggestions as to the best way for interested SG/C's to indicate their interest in participating
i think part of what's going on is that a) things are moving fast and b) the rules of the road aren't clear yet. i don't feel that i'm qualified to participate in the "content" part of the "get ready for Brazil" effort, but i would be happy to assist with slapping together a quick charter if Rafik, Olivier and others would find that helpful. here's a link to a series of chartering questions i've cobbled together over the years that might be useful in crafting a charter, whether i'm involved in that or not (many of you have seen these before).
http://www.haven2.com/index.php/tools/mikeys-pretty-good-project-definition-...
thanks all,
mikey
On Nov 28, 2013, at 4:33 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Thanks Amr & Avri,
I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station.
Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context.
Jonathan
From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Hi
I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it.
In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling.
Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.
I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate.
Thanks,
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
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
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
If all of you will accept some thoughts on this from a Temporary Alternate, here are some suggestions I would like to make. I don’t think it is wise for us to think of this as an NCSG/ALAC initiative unless they suggest otherwise. I believe it is a Fadi initiative that the NCSG and ALAC picked up on and many of the rest of us didn’t; I am not sure why that is the case but it would be interesting to find out. I would be curious to know what session it was when Fadi suggested this. At ICANN in-person meetings there are always multiple conflicts so we don’t all attend the same sessions. Going forward, I think it would be best if we joined in and try to make it a productive effort rather than spending time worrying about how it came about. In my opinion, all of this illustrates the problem of staff initiating efforts in a public setting without involving existing mechanisms and processes. It results in confusion and feelings of disenfranchisement by some members of the community. This doesn’t mean that initiating things like this needs to take a lot of time, but I believe that before doing so in a public session, it would help a lot if staff would talk to the leaders of the various SOs and ACs so they are not blindsided and even better so that a simple plan can be devised for a quick rollout, bottom-up instead of top-down. Moreover, bottom-up doesn’t have to mean slow if existing leadership structures are used. I think Avri describe this very well in saying “. . at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.” Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:34 AM To: 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Thanks Amr & Avri, I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station. Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context. Jonathan From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org]<mailto:[mailto:avri@acm.org]> Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Hi I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it. In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling. Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech. I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate. Thanks, avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>,"<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues 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<mailto: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<mailto: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
Personally, I appreciate your engagement and input Chuck. My recollection is that Fadi suggested a CWG at the 07h00 Wednesday 20th impromptu meeting to discuss 3 topics. At the time it was not clear whether 1, 2 or 3 CWGs were being suggested. He indicated at the time that he was in some way now handing this over to the community and hence the opportunity for 1 or more CWGs. http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-multistakeholder-community For information, I just posted this to the SO/AC discussion list in response to a posting from Bill: --- Bill, Thanks for that information / input. A couple of points to add: 1. Some form of listserv does seem to make sense. The following list has been recently mentioned in GNSO Council discussion on the topic: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination Would this be the one to use or is another required? 2. The Registries SG mailing list had some discussion about a possible 3rd coordinator with more of a commercial / business background. This was not specifically suggested to be someone with a registries / contracted parties link. 3. Under the management of the GNSO Council, the GNSO did undertake initial work on guidelines for CWGs, which was then modified with input from the ccNSO (all SO & ACs were invited to provide input). The idea was that these could potentially be further developed in conjunction with other SO & ACs in order to provide a framework for future collaboration under within ICANN in CWGs. The status quo of this effort is discussed in a recent staff paper and it may be that an approach along the lines described is something that other SO & ACs feel we can work with here? Rafik added on cc. I understand Olivier is already on this list. Jonathan From: owner-soac-discussion@icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 28 November 2013 13:36 To: Olof Nordling Cc: David Olive; soac-discussion@icann.org; Sally Costerton; Theresa Swinehart; Duncan Burns; Tracy Hackshaw (Tracy.Hackshaw@gov.tt) Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG Hi As concerns were raised on the Council list, just to be clear on the process: NCSG & ALAC met and talked about cooperation as we always do, and as we both care about the issue and see the need to move it forward we decided to start a dialogue with our chairs as facilitators. If people want to simply join that great we’ll grow it into a CWG, if there’s a preference to organize the CWG another way we can do that…the initiative was not in any way an effort to ‘control’ the process and its agenda, but simply to get things started. Perhaps a listserv is in order? Best, Bill From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 28 November 2013 13:49 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues If all of you will accept some thoughts on this from a Temporary Alternate, here are some suggestions I would like to make. I don’t think it is wise for us to think of this as an NCSG/ALAC initiative unless they suggest otherwise. I believe it is a Fadi initiative that the NCSG and ALAC picked up on and many of the rest of us didn’t; I am not sure why that is the case but it would be interesting to find out. I would be curious to know what session it was when Fadi suggested this. At ICANN in-person meetings there are always multiple conflicts so we don’t all attend the same sessions. Going forward, I think it would be best if we joined in and try to make it a productive effort rather than spending time worrying about how it came about. In my opinion, all of this illustrates the problem of staff initiating efforts in a public setting without involving existing mechanisms and processes. It results in confusion and feelings of disenfranchisement by some members of the community. This doesn’t mean that initiating things like this needs to take a lot of time, but I believe that before doing so in a public session, it would help a lot if staff would talk to the leaders of the various SOs and ACs so they are not blindsided and even better so that a simple plan can be devised for a quick rollout, bottom-up instead of top-down. Moreover, bottom-up doesn’t have to mean slow if existing leadership structures are used. I think Avri describe this very well in saying “. . at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.” Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:34 AM To: 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Thanks Amr & Avri, I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station. Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context. Jonathan From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Hi I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it. In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling. Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech. I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate. Thanks, avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"<council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues 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" < <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> 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 Jonathan. As you might guess, I did not attend that meeting. Chuck From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 9:03 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Personally, I appreciate your engagement and input Chuck. My recollection is that Fadi suggested a CWG at the 07h00 Wednesday 20th impromptu meeting to discuss 3 topics. At the time it was not clear whether 1, 2 or 3 CWGs were being suggested. He indicated at the time that he was in some way now handing this over to the community and hence the opportunity for 1 or more CWGs. http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-multistakeholder-community For information, I just posted this to the SO/AC discussion list in response to a posting from Bill: --- Bill, Thanks for that information / input. A couple of points to add: 1. Some form of listserv does seem to make sense. The following list has been recently mentioned in GNSO Council discussion on the topic: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination Would this be the one to use or is another required? 2. The Registries SG mailing list had some discussion about a possible 3rd coordinator with more of a commercial / business background. This was not specifically suggested to be someone with a registries / contracted parties link. 3. Under the management of the GNSO Council, the GNSO did undertake initial work on guidelines for CWGs, which was then modified with input from the ccNSO (all SO & ACs were invited to provide input). The idea was that these could potentially be further developed in conjunction with other SO & ACs in order to provide a framework for future collaboration under within ICANN in CWGs. The status quo of this effort is discussed in a recent staff paper and it may be that an approach along the lines described is something that other SO & ACs feel we can work with here? Rafik added on cc. I understand Olivier is already on this list. Jonathan From: owner-soac-discussion@icann.org<mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org> [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 28 November 2013 13:36 To: Olof Nordling Cc: David Olive; soac-discussion@icann.org<mailto:soac-discussion@icann.org>; Sally Costerton; Theresa Swinehart; Duncan Burns; Tracy Hackshaw (Tracy.Hackshaw@gov.tt<mailto:Tracy.Hackshaw@gov.tt>) Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG Hi As concerns were raised on the Council list, just to be clear on the process: NCSG & ALAC met and talked about cooperation as we always do, and as we both care about the issue and see the need to move it forward we decided to start a dialogue with our chairs as facilitators. If people want to simply join that great we’ll grow it into a CWG, if there’s a preference to organize the CWG another way we can do that…the initiative was not in any way an effort to ‘control’ the process and its agenda, but simply to get things started. Perhaps a listserv is in order? Best, Bill From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]<mailto:[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]> Sent: 28 November 2013 13:49 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues If all of you will accept some thoughts on this from a Temporary Alternate, here are some suggestions I would like to make. I don’t think it is wise for us to think of this as an NCSG/ALAC initiative unless they suggest otherwise. I believe it is a Fadi initiative that the NCSG and ALAC picked up on and many of the rest of us didn’t; I am not sure why that is the case but it would be interesting to find out. I would be curious to know what session it was when Fadi suggested this. At ICANN in-person meetings there are always multiple conflicts so we don’t all attend the same sessions. Going forward, I think it would be best if we joined in and try to make it a productive effort rather than spending time worrying about how it came about. In my opinion, all of this illustrates the problem of staff initiating efforts in a public setting without involving existing mechanisms and processes. It results in confusion and feelings of disenfranchisement by some members of the community. This doesn’t mean that initiating things like this needs to take a lot of time, but I believe that before doing so in a public session, it would help a lot if staff would talk to the leaders of the various SOs and ACs so they are not blindsided and even better so that a simple plan can be devised for a quick rollout, bottom-up instead of top-down. Moreover, bottom-up doesn’t have to mean slow if existing leadership structures are used. I think Avri describe this very well in saying “. . at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.” Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:34 AM To: 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Thanks Amr & Avri, I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station. Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context. Jonathan From: avri [mailto:avri@acm.org]<mailto:[mailto:avri@acm.org]> Sent: 28 November 2013 00:52 To: <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues Hi I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it. In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling. Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech. I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate. Thanks, avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>" <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>,"<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues 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<mailto: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<mailto: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
Hi Jonathan, Some comments in-line below: On Nov 28, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: [SNIP]
Bill,
Thanks for that information / input. A couple of points to add:
1. Some form of listserv does seem to make sense. The following list has been recently mentioned in GNSO Council discussion on the topic: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination Would this be the one to use or is another required?
I would personally advise a dedicated list for discussions and deliberations amongst the ICANN community. I’ve been on the i-coordination list since halfway through the BA meeting. My impression is that they are really struggling to focus on a constructive agreement. I was hoping for a discussion focused on defining the process leading up to Brazil and the debate revolving around representation. Instead, they seem to be all over the place. Unfortunately not very goal-oriented. Those are my thoughts…, as naive as they might be.
2. The Registries SG mailing list had some discussion about a possible 3rd coordinator with more of a commercial / business background. This was not specifically suggested to be someone with a registries / contracted parties link.
This sounds like a good idea to me. [SNIP] Thanks. Amr [
Hi Jonathan, Jumping in late to this as your message pretty much covers it; but just to confirm the invitation that ncsg / alac responded to by coordinating was indeed the verbal invitation to the whole community Fadi issued at the 0700 meeting on Thursday in BA which I think staff have followed up on in their note to so/ac's, triggering John's concerns. Let's hang on to some of our Friday session's candour and good will and not jump straight to paranoia..! Maria On 28 November 2013 14:02, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Personally, I appreciate your engagement and input Chuck.
My recollection is that Fadi suggested a CWG at the 07h00 Wednesday 20thimpromptu meeting to discuss 3 topics. At the time it was not clear whether 1, 2 or 3 CWGs were being suggested.
He indicated at the time that he was in some way now handing this over to the community and hence the opportunity for 1 or more CWGs.
http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-multistakeholder-community
For information, I just posted this to the SO/AC discussion list in response to a posting from Bill:
---
Bill,
Thanks for that information / input. A couple of points to add:
1. Some form of listserv does seem to make sense. The following list has been recently mentioned in GNSO Council discussion on the topic: https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination Would this be the one to use or is another required?
2. The Registries SG mailing list had some discussion about a possible 3rd coordinator with more of a commercial / business background. This was not specifically suggested to be someone with a registries / contracted parties link.
3. Under the management of the GNSO Council, the GNSO did undertake initial work on guidelines for CWGs, which was then modified with input from the ccNSO (all SO & ACs were invited to provide input). The idea was that these could potentially be further developed in conjunction with other SO & ACs in order to provide a framework for future collaboration under within ICANN in CWGs. The status quo of this effort is discussed in a recent staff paper and it may be that an approach along the lines described is something that other SO & ACs feel we can work with here?
Rafik added on cc. I understand Olivier is already on this list.
Jonathan
*From:* owner-soac-discussion@icann.org [ mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org <owner-soac-discussion@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *William Drake *Sent:* 28 November 2013 13:36 *To:* Olof Nordling *Cc:* David Olive; soac-discussion@icann.org; Sally Costerton; Theresa Swinehart; Duncan Burns; Tracy Hackshaw (Tracy.Hackshaw@gov.tt) *Subject:* Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG
Hi
As concerns were raised on the Council list, just to be clear on the process: NCSG & ALAC met and talked about cooperation as we always do, and as we both care about the issue and see the need to move it forward we decided to start a dialogue with our chairs as facilitators. If people want to simply join that great we’ll grow it into a CWG, if there’s a preference to organize the CWG another way we can do that…the initiative was not in any way an effort to ‘control’ the process and its agenda, but simply to get things started.
Perhaps a listserv is in order?
Best,
Bill
*From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] *Sent:* 28 November 2013 13:49 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info; 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org
*Subject:* RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
If all of you will accept some thoughts on this from a Temporary Alternate, here are some suggestions I would like to make.
I don’t think it is wise for us to think of this as an NCSG/ALAC initiative unless they suggest otherwise. I believe it is a Fadi initiative that the NCSG and ALAC picked up on and many of the rest of us didn’t; I am not sure why that is the case but it would be interesting to find out. I would be curious to know what session it was when Fadi suggested this. At ICANN in-person meetings there are always multiple conflicts so we don’t all attend the same sessions.
Going forward, I think it would be best if we joined in and try to make it a productive effort rather than spending time worrying about how it came about.
In my opinion, all of this illustrates the problem of staff initiating efforts in a public setting without involving existing mechanisms and processes. It results in confusion and feelings of disenfranchisement by some members of the community. This doesn’t mean that initiating things like this needs to take a lot of time, but I believe that before doing so in a public session, it would help a lot if staff would talk to the leaders of the various SOs and ACs so they are not blindsided and even better so that a simple plan can be devised for a quick rollout, bottom-up instead of top-down. Moreover, bottom-up doesn’t have to mean slow if existing leadership structures are used.
I think Avri describe this very well in saying “. . at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.”
Chuck
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 28, 2013 5:34 AM *To:* 'avri'; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Thanks Amr & Avri,
I understood Fadi’s invitation similarly to you Avri and, personally, can see the NCSG / ALAC initiative for what it seems to be i.e. a good faith attempt to jump on the train before it leaves the station.
Also, I certainly do not believe any SG/C needs the Council’s blessing or permission to participate. Where the Council MAY be able to help is assisting with the communication / co-ordination to ensure all GNSO groups are fully aware of what is going on and any recent background. This thread seems to have been helpful in that context.
Jonathan
*From:* avri [mailto:avri@acm.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2013 00:52 *To:* <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
Hi
I had understood it that Fadi invited the whole community to do something. So, it wasn't that he specifically invited the non commercials of NCSG and users of ALAC, but rather that like everyone else we heard the invitation at the Wednesday early morning meeting, and decided to act on it.
In doing so, the idea was, we saw the train leaving and we figured we would jump on before it left without us. We also extended an invitation for all other SG/C to join us when we announced in the forum that we had taken up the offer and gotten the ball rolling.
Rafik, the NCSG chair and Olivier the ALAC chair are currently facilitating this effort. I suggest other SG/C talk to them about joining in the effort if interested. I also understand that some may decide to stand aside from this CWG on bottom-up principle. I can respect that. But at this point we are so far beyond the bottom-up principle on so many aspects of ICANN actions, I find that it is a principle mostly honored in the breech.
I appreciate that Sally accepted that this effort was the start of response to their request for community participation. I also see no reason why on a cross community wg, NCSG should need the council's permission to participate.
Thanks,
avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: 11/27/2013 19:15 (GMT-05:00) To: John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com> Cc: "<jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson@afilias.info>,"< council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] CWG on Internet Govenrance Issues
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
participants (6)
-
Amr Elsadr -
avri -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jonathan Robinson -
Maria Farrell -
Mike O'Connor