Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Date of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
 

Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups

COMMENTOlivier Crepin-Leblond, Marilyn Cade, Gregory Shatan  TBC

Mary Wong

policy-staff@icann.org

TBC

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 

 

Brief Overview

Purpose: This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain community feedback on a proposed draft framework of uniform principles to guide the initiation and operations of future cross community working groups.

Current Status: The draft framework document has been published for public comment.

Next Steps: After the review of public comments received, the final framework document will be prepared.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

In March 2014, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils chartered a cross community working group (CCWG-Principles) to develop a uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. The group reviewed several previous joint and cross-community efforts to understand the typical life cycle of such groups, including the two most recent cross-community working groups (the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability). The draft Framework of Principles that is now being published for public comment builds on the CCWG-Principles’ understanding of the nature, needs and problems of these previous efforts. Structured around these groups’ typical life cycle, the draft framework sets out a series of chronological steps to be taken by each ICANN Supporting Organizationand Advisory Committee in determining whether to establish a new CCWG and whether to participate in it by chartering the CCWG. It also documents the elements to be included in a typical CCWG charter and the processes to be followed for a CCWG’s recommendations to be adopted by its chartering organizations. A template for a CCWG charter has also been included. While comments are invited on all parts of the document, the CCWG-Principles will welcome in particular any input on the open questions contained in Section 4.

Following the close of the public comment period, the CCWG-Principles will review all feedback received (including from any ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee in response to the draft Framework), and prepare a proposed final framework for adoption by theccNSO and GNSO Councils. It is anticipated that, following adoption of the final Framework by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, all other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be invited to also consider adopting the framework for all future CCWGs that are to be formed.

Section II: Background

There has been an increasing reliance on cross community working groups within the ICANNcommunity as there is an increasing number of issues that are recognized to cut across and affect more than one of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Despite there having been several CCWGs to date, including most recently on ICANN Accountability and the IANA Stewardship Transition, there are no agreed community-wide guidelines on their use. Between 2011 and 2013 the GNSO community had worked on a set of preliminary guidelines for such efforts, for which the ccNSO had provided detailed feedback.

Each Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee within ICANN is responsible for different aspects of policy development and advice, and operates under different mandates and remits. There are, however, issues that affect or interest more than one Supporting Organization and/orAdvisory Committee. Up to now, cross community working groups have been formed on a relatively ad-hoc basis, without a framework of consistent operating principles that take into account the differences between each SO/AC. In order to facilitate the successful functioning of CWGs, and to build upon previous work by the GNSO and ccNSO, the current CWG-Principles was chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils in March 2014, to develop a framework of uniform operating principles to facilitate the effective and efficient functioning of future CWGs

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Mary Wong
policy-staff@icann.org

PROPOSED COVER EMAIL

The attached Statement is co-signed by the Chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance in their individual capacity.
the Statement has been shared with the working group both on its mailing list and been presented during the weekly call on 15 April 2016. https://community.icann.org/x/XD6AAw

No objection from working group members participating in the call nor on the mailing list have been recorded.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF AGREED BY MEMBERS OF THE CCWG INTERNET GOVERNANCE (Red text added to First draft, based on the feedback received during the conference call)

 

The Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) was created in late 2014 to enable an ongoing bridge between Staff and Community as well as a meeting point among the Community . It pre-dates the creation of the charters for the CWG IANA Stewardship Transition and CCWG ICANN Accountability.

Its Charter explains the working group’s primary objectives:

“ Objective

The Internet Governance CWG has been established by the participating SO’s and AC’s to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of the ICANN community in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance.

All issues, processes and discussions regarding the Transition of NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions, and/or current and future accountability and accountability mechanisms related to the aforementioned Transition, are deemed to be out of scope of the objective of the WG.

For avoidance of doubt: The WG shall not act as a representative of the participating SO’s and AC’s collectively or individually, nor others, unless they have been explicitly asked to do so by all the participating SO’s and AC’s collectively or individually.

 

Scope of Activities

The scope of activities of the WG is to do whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes.

The WG will take a proactive role in seeking and fostering participation and input into the processes and provide regular feedback to the SO's and AC's.

In achieving its objective the WG will undertake, but is not limited to, the following activities:

  • Provide input to ICANN staff, SOs and/or ACs on issues pertaining to Internet Governance discussions and processes.
  • Provide input to the participating SOs and/or ACs to ensure such input as mentioned under a. above is reflected in ICANN’s activities in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance.
  • Convey to the ICANN community discussions about ICANN or ICANN matters that arise in other Internet Governance discussions and processes.
  • Organize SO and AC focused sessions
  • Disseminate and summarize information relevant and related to the Internet Governance events and processes described above.
  • Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate, in accordance with the rules of this Charter (section 4). “

 

These objectives have been achieved since the inception of the working group, with no need for the work to conclude, as Internet Governance is an ongoing activity. In the past, members of the working group have coordinated external workshops and activities including a session about the multistakeholder process used to reach consensus in the IANA Stewardship Transition Process both at the WSIS Forum in May 2015 and at the Internet Governance Forum 2015, as well as a forthcoming session explaining the multistakeholder process used in CCWG Accountability, at the WSIS Forum in May 2016.

 

By its very nature, the CCWG IG does not have an inherent end point because of the ongoing nature of its work. It is the belief of the authors of this comment that such CCWGs should describe why this is the case in their Terms of Reference and to propose some amended language. Any guidelines should embrace CCWGs that do not have an end point.

We see that there are several classes of CCWGs:

-        Some CCWGs produce recommendations which, if ratified by their Chartering Organisations, will eventually reach the Board for action

-        Some CCWGs produce recommendations which might not require Board action

-        Some CCWGs produce guidance or advice about ICANN activities, Staff and Board external engagement that has implications for Chartering Organisations

 

As the use of CCWGs in recent work has shown the variety of formats that a CCWG may take, it is clearly too early to think that a “one size fits all” format for all CCWGs is possible.

We therefore suggest that for the time being the flexibility of CCWGs in drafting their Terms of Reference in individual Charters should be maintained and that the variety of Chartering practices be monitored for a period of two years, when a better knowledge of the needs of CCWGs will have been acquired. At that time, we expect that Standard and Usual Operating Practices as well as areas of exceptions will become apparent.

 


FIRST DRAFT UPLOADED ON 9 APRIL 2016.

 

The Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance (CCWG-IG) was created in late 2014 to enable an ongoing bridge between Staff and Community. It pre-dates the creation of the charters for the CWG IANA Stewardship Transition and CCWG ICANN Accountability.

Its Charter explains the working group’s primary objectives:

“ Objective

The Internet Governance CWG has been established by the participating SO’s and AC’s to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of the ICANN community in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance.

All issues, processes and discussions regarding the Transition of NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions, and/or current and future accountability and accountability mechanisms related to the aforementioned Transition, are deemed to be out of scope of the objective of the WG.

For avoidance of doubt: The WG shall not act as a representative of the participating SO’s and AC’s collectively or individually, nor others, unless they have been explicitly asked to do so by all the participating SO’s and AC’s collectively or individually.

 

Scope of Activities

The scope of activities of the WG is to do whatever it deems relevant and necessary to facilitate and ensure engagement and participation of the ICANN community in the global Internet governance scene and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes.

The WG will take a proactive role in seeking and fostering participation and input into the processes and provide regular feedback to the SO's and AC's.

In achieving its objective the WG will undertake, but is not limited to, the following activities:

  • Provide input to ICANN staff, SOs and/or ACs on issues pertaining to Internet Governance discussions and processes.
  • Provide input to the participating SOs and/or ACs to ensure such input as mentioned under a. above is reflected in ICANN’s activities in discussions and processes pertaining to Internet Governance.
  • Convey to the ICANN community discussions about ICANN or ICANN matters that arise in other Internet Governance discussions and processes.
  • Organize SO and AC focused sessions
  • Disseminate and summarize information relevant and related to the Internet Governance events and processes described above.
  • Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate, in accordance with the rules of this Charter (section 4). “

 

These objectives have been achieved since the inception of the working group, with no need for the work to conclude, as Internet Governance is an ongoing activity. In the past, members of the working group have coordinated external workshops and activities including a session about the multistakeholder process used to reach consensus in the IANA Stewardship Transition Process both at the WSIS Forum in May 2015 and at the Internet Governance Forum 2015 as well as a forthcoming session about the multistakeholder process at the WSIS Forum in May 2016.

 

By its very nature, the CCWG IG has characteristics that make a starting and end point difficult to predict. It is the belief of the authors of this comment that such CCWGs in their Terms of Reference, should describe why this is the case and to propose some amended language. We see that there are several classes of CCWGs:

-        Some CCWGs produce recommendations which, if ratified by their Chartering Organisations, will eventually reach the Board for action

-        Some CCWGs produce recommendations which might not require Board action

-        Some CCWGs produce guidance or advice about ICANN activities, Staff and Board external engagement that has implications for Chartering Organisations

As the use of CCWGs in recent work has shown the variety of formats that a CCWG may take, it is clearly too early to think that a “one size fits all” format for all CCWGs is possible.

We therefore suggest that for the time being the flexibility of CCWGs in drafting their Terms of Reference in individual Charters should be maintained and that the variety of Chartering practices be monitored for a period of two years, when a better knowledge of the needs of CCWGs will have been acquired. At that time, we expect that Standard and Usual Operating Practices as well as areas of exceptions will stand out intrinsically.

 

 

 

  • No labels