Proposed Charter for CWG on Internet governance (tbd)

Strawmen versions of the Charter

Please click on the DOC or PDF links to download the DOC or PD.

Please use the "Comment" feature on this page to comment on the charter. In commenting, please say which Version you are commenting on.

Major changes version 5. (FINAL)

Changes as discussed on the call of 16 May 2014.

Major changes version 4.

Dear all,

After the discussion this week the following changes have been made to the draft charter in comparison with the previous version 3:

Section 2 ( Objective and scope)

Title has been renamed to: Objective and scope of activities

Per discussion during the call and after looking at the document again this section has been re-arranged to address the following:

1. Reduce redundancy ( in previous versions the listing a-d under Objective and the bullets under Scope were partly similar.
2. The listing a-d  under Objective are means to achieve the overarching Objective, which is similar to scope of activities. 

The limitation of scope ( Excluding the IANA Stewardship Transition) has been moved up and is now a limitation of the scope of the objective.

Scope of activities has been updated to include the activity of "providing input to"

The suggested proviso re drafting Position Papers and Statement has been replaced by a reference to the section of the charter dealing with the topic.

Section 3 Deliverables and Timeframes

The section progress report -> reporting progress

The section reflects the two mechanisms for reporting on progress

The paragraph on Position Paper and Statement has been amended. In the context of this section it was included to indicate that preparing these reports is a deliverable. It has now been amended to indicate preparing and decision-making needs to be reflected in the (updated) work plan.

Section 4. Process for the Development of a Position paper or Statement

The Final paragraph(s) SO and AC have been amended to reflect discussion on latest call

Section 5 Members, Staff etc.

The order of the first subsection ( Participants) has been re-arranged.

Appointment of Co-Chair -> for avoidance of doubt it is proposed they are considered Member. Following the discussion, it is also proposed that he Co-chairs may elect a chair and vice-chair if this is considered helpful and after consulting the Participants

Included a paragraph on Statement of Interest. This paragraph is similar to the one used in the ccWG Framework ccWG. Note that some Sos and Acs do not require a SOI.

Sub-section 3 ( decision Making) has NOT been adjusted: this is similar to the section in the ccWG on Framework ccWG. 

Section 6

Omission /Unreasonable Impact of Charter

The section is now similar to section in ccWG Framework ccWGs 

Version 1 below // Superseded // please see table above for latest versions

Problem Statement 

What is the problem to be solved? 

...

Engage in a bottom-up led conversation to advance the agenda articulated in the Montevideo Statement

What is the chronology of the situation - how did we get here? 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm Montevideo Statement

...

On Thursday, ALAC and NCSG create a working group which the whole ICANN community is invited to join.

What alternatives to doing this project have we explored? 

The alternative is to NOT get involved as a community in the Brazil meeting nor the 1net coordination. This risks having parts of the community involved in an unstructured way thus bringing an imbalance to the input provided by the ICANN community in the 1net process.

Stakeholders 

All Stakeholders at ICANN. 

...

Absolutely everyone. ICANN’s model is at risk.

Which employees? 

ICANN policy staff - from two perspectives: support and policy-input staff -  support 
ICANN senior staff - from two perspectives: strategy and goal alignment, and funding/logistics

  Stakeholders? 

All ICANN AC/SO's and stakeholders group/constituencies within them may have an interest. 

 Others? 

Potential for including groups that are not part of ICANN. Suggestion that the different SO/AC/SGs should reach out to their respective communities outside ICANN and let them know this work is taking place, channeling any of their concerns via them as their representative. 

Have they been involved sufficiently up to this point? 

There is a sense of being left in the dark that is quite prevalent in the community right now.  This effort presents an opportunity to broaden engagement and make the process more transparent.

Should they be brought in to the project?  When?

While there is a small risk of too many voices causing confusion, the posture of this effort is that broad engagement and participation are welcome.  Smaller groups can be formed if things become unwieldy example : a kind of pyramidal structure where there will indeed be splinter groups or sub-working groups that will come back to the wider group to report. 

To what degree do they share the belief that this is a problem that needs to be solved? 

Broad agreement that the ICANN community needs to participate effectively in the Brazil meeting

Who ought to 'champion' this project? 

As this is a cross-community effort, AC/SO/Constituency leadership should champion

To whom should the project team report? 

Facilitators who will help with the communication of information between the various groups & the Board & Staff. Co-Chairs who will direct the work itself. 

Do we need a Steering Committee to provide resources and resolve disputes? 

Yes -- include AC/SO/Constituency chairs and staff leaders (at least one from policy staff and one from senior staff).  The goals are speedy formation, infrequent interventions and nimble/helpful response when needed.

Scope, Size and Perspective 

What written definition clearly distinguishes between what is inside this project, and what is outside? 

...

Develop mechanisms whereby in-person participants can inform, and obtain guidance from, remote participants during the course of the meeting

In scope?

start creating position papers & put them on a WIKI & then from these position papers, see what commonality the different writers have. 

Provide a point of contact between ICANN and the broader 1Net initiative?

Out of scope

Provide input to the Internet Governance Strategic Panel

What is the level of detail and precision involved in this effort - is this a sweeping global effort (like a vision or strategy) or is this a project to produce specific outcomes (like install a system, or build a house)? 

This is a narrowly-focused effort to prepare the ICANN community for a new meeting that is  a few months away.  this group should spend most of its time on the content – certainly not finding answers, but certainly finding the right questions to launch into the debate that will take place in Brazil. 

Goals & Objectives 

What tangible, deliverable things do we want to see when this project is completed? 

...

This effort will conclude shortly after the end of the Brazil meeting

Critical Success Factors 

What things do we need to do well in order for this project to succeed? 

...

Build relationships and trust, both inside and outside of ICANN 

Preferred Problem-Solving Approach 

These questions are the socket into which a work plan is inserted.  Revisit them once the broad outlines of the charter are agreed. 

Who will do what tasks, with whom, by what date? 

What are the intermediate milestone events and deliverables that we can use as checkpoints to monitor the progress of the project? 

Are they more than 1 or 2 weeks apart? 

Do we need more (or fewer) tasks and milestones to keep the project under a reasonable level of control?  

What’s the mechanism for getting things back on track if the project is missing key dates?

setting a roadmap