• No labels


  1. Here is a first stab. The intention is to be brief, specific without being too constraining, and above all achievable.


    The objective of this group is to provide constructive input to the Brazil governance meeting, the 2014 IGF, the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and other relevant engagements. It will describe and support the ICANN multi-stakeholder model (MSM), and elaborate on its benefit to education, engagement, commerce, innovation, health, and global prosperity.

    While the specifics of the ICANN MSM are still evolving, and under regular review, it is generally believed within the ICANN community that it is more robust, open and in the global public interest than alternatives such as the multilateral approaches to Internet regulation proposed in the ITU and elsewhere, This group will elaborate on the rationale for maintaining an dynamic, evolving MSM, from within the communities most affected by Internet governance.

    Deliverables and timeline:

    This group will produce:

    • A Working Paper outlining some of the broad concepts and benefits behind the MSM, to be distributed in advance of the Singapore meeting
    • A workshop at the ICANN Singapore meeting to discuss and refine the contents of the Working Paper
    • A Public Comment Period, in parallel with the Singapore meeting, to attract feedback on the Working Paper
    • A Joint Statement, developed after the Singapore meeting and incorporating feedback from the Workshop, to achieve consensus from within the group and presented to the ICANN community, the 1Net group and elsewhere, for consideration and endorsement.
    • Presentation and discussion of the Joint Statement at the Brazil Meeting.


    Once the Joint Statement is developed the group will convene to determine future goals, possibly creating a formal charter for consideration by ICANN's various constituencies and advisory committees.

    1. Thanks for this great start Evan.

      I would suggest adding as a goal to become a continuos analysis group on the different alternative models presented or discussed in the different fora related to IG in order to produce (as future deliverables) opinions and advice on whether those models comply with what the ICANN community generally agrees as MSM or otherwise explain why such models do not accomplish to comply.

  2. From Avri Doria (email December 11th 2013)


    Assuming I understood the assignment. My individual thoughts on the issue.

    I think of this group as a clearing house for all issues related to ICANN and Internet governance. When ICANN staff wants to take action or has questions, they come to this group to make sure that the community is involved. The group coordinates the activities among the ICANN participant community.

    The group can also serve as a collection point for questions, concerns and recommendations from the ICANN SOAC and other ICANN entities on issues related to Internet governance to the Board, to 1net, IGF, WGEC, and meetings organized by various countries, such as the Brazil meeting, or by intergovernmental organizations such as PP- 14.

    The group could go so far as to develop recommendations, advice and opinions that could be endorsed by the individual SOACs, collectively or individually.

    At no point would it constrain action by any single SOAC or other entity, but it would attempt coordination whenever possible.

    Unlike a regular WG, I do not know if this group have a finite set of actives. But in terms of 2014, a finite set could certainly be defined.


  3. From Oliver Sueme (email December 12th 2013)

    Dear all,

    We discussed the goal of the CWG in the call yesterday and I wanted to make a suggestion how to proceed:

    The CWG is composed of different stakeholdergroups / constituencies so there might be different expectations regarding the common goal from a vertical perspective.

    On the other hand, I assume all of us will have a general expectation regarding ICANNs role as an association in the Internet Governance ecosystem and regarding the brazil conference from a horizontal perspective (multistakeholder approach in general).

    What about if alle stakeholder groups on the list would define these two perspectives for them and get back to the list with their suggestions. This could be a good basis for a further discussion and a defintion of the goal of the CWG.

    Happy to get your comments on this!


    Oliver Sueme