Jump to content

Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
Jessica (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
14,952 edits
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance'''<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2014/02/an-update-on-the-cross-community-working-group-on-internet-governance/ Update from the CCWG-IG] Retrieved 06 May 2014</ref>
{{ICANN Working Group
|Organizer=Community
|Status=Active
|Issue Areas=Internet Governance
|Type=CCWG
|Date Established=November 2013
|Charter=https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52888213
|Workspace=https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275
}}


==CCWG-Accountability==
The '''Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance''' was created in November 2013 at [[ICANN 48]] as a means of participation and engagement with upcoming Internet governance events, specifically [[NETmundial]].<ref name="gacinvite">[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52888213&preview=/52888213/109480803/PAPER%20FOR%20GAC%20ON%20THE%20CCEG%20IG%20_final.pdf CCWG-IG Workspace - Paper for GAC regarding CCEG-IG Charter], March 2018</ref> The CCWG had three initial charter members: the ccNSO; the gNSO; and ALAC; as well as members from the GAC, SSAC, and RSSAC.<ref name="gacinvite" />


The CCWG-Accountability was developed in response to a community that did not believe that ICANN’s Board’s proposal adequately met the needs of the global multistakeholder community. The accountability process that was originally designed by ICANN received unfavorable public comments, resulting in a revised proposal. After the revised version, suggesting a two-tier working group once again received a negative response during the public comment period, ICANN stakeholders submitted a joint rejection letter to the ICANN Board demanding a community-driven approach. <ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/pdfggcThDbfOp.pdf Stakeholders Joint Letter]</ref>
==History==
At [[ICANN 48]], [[Fadi Chehade]] led a community discussion on preparations for the upcoming [[NETmundial]] meeting in Brazil.<ref name="48session">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2013/en/schedule/wed-multistakeholder-community.html ICANN 48 Archive - ICANN Community Preparation for the Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil], November 20, 2013</ref> Chehade initially proposed that the meeting might spur the SOs and ACs to create two CCWGs: one for collecting input on ICANN's participation in NETmundial, and one focused on the continued development of the [[1net]] mailing list and refining its purpose as a platform for discussion of governance issues.<ref name="48transcript">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2013/en/schedule/wed-multistakeholder-community/transcript-multistakeholder-community-20nov13-en.html ICANN 48 Archive - Transcript, ICANN Community Preparation for the Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil], November 20, 2013</ref> During the conversation, [[Milton Mueller]], [[Bertrand de la Chapelle]], and [[Olivier Crepin-Leblond]] all suggested that one CCWG focused on Internet governance was likely more appropriate. A number of commenters agreed that, although the scope and shape of ICANN's contributions to NETmundial and beyond were likely to grow and expand beyond the confines of any working group, a focus within ICANN would be useful.<ref name="48transcript" />


The joint letter combined with reiterated demands for accountability improvements at an ICANN Town Hall Session at the United Nations Ninth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and favorable comments coming from the NTIA, led the board to concede at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles that accountability and the IANA Transition are ultimately intertwined.  
In December 2013, [[Evan Leibovitch]] submitted a proposed set of objectives, goals, and purposes of the CCWG.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/Objectives%2C+goals+and+purpose+of+the+Working+Group CCWG-IG Workspace - Goals and Purpose of the Working Group], last updated December 20, 2013</ref> The proposal was received positively, and formed the basis for the group's work during 2014. The original charter for the group was first ratified by the ccNSO in September 2014, and subsequently by the GNSO in October 2014.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52888225 CCWG-IG Workspace - Charter Ratification Dates], last updated April 30, 2015</ref>. However, there were ongoing conversations regarding the purpose of both the working group and any charter document.<ref name="charter">[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52888213 CCWG-IG Workspace - Charter]</ref> This led the working group to consider the possibility of acting as an "Engagement Group" instead.<ref name="charter" />
Based on strong community sentiment, the structure originally proposed by ICANN, the CCG/Coordination Group, was adapted into the CCWG-Accountability, which became the vehicle for creating a proposed improvement to the mechanisms already in place.  


In May 2015, the CCWG submitted their First Draft Proposal, which proposed SO/ACs as Members of ICANN, giving them the ability to exercise certain accountability powers. These comments on this initial proposal expressed concerns with the individual SO/AC roles and legal personality required under this model.  
Although it is considered an active and ongoing working group, the CCWG-IG's activity has diminished since 2019.<ref>See, e.g., the [https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/CCWG+on+IG+Teleconference+-+2019.12.10 last recorded teleconference] of the "Engagement Group" (as described in the minutes) on December 10, 2019</ref>
<ref>[https://internetnz.nz/sites/default/files/2015-10-09-ICANN-accty-chrono.pdf Chronology of Recent ICANN Accountability milestones]</ref>
 
In responding to the raised concerns, the CCWG met in Paris for a Face-to-face meeting and united around the Sole Member Model, which presented SOs and ACs as a single member of ICANN. This model was then developed into the CCWG’s Second Draft Proposal, which introduced the Community Mechanism as a Sole Member (CMSM) model.
 
The second proposal was met with significant resistance by ICANN’s board, which provided an alternative proposal in the form of the Multistakeholder Enforcement Mechanism (MEM) model. This led the CCWG to call for a Face-to-Face meeting in Los Angeles. At this meeting, the board drew a “red line,” communicating that it could not accept a model involving Membership. Accordingly, CCWG participants began exploring alternative options, including considering a “designator” model. However, the Board asserted that like the Membership model, a designator model was unacceptable.
 
After [[ICANN 55]], in Marrakech, ICANN transmitted the final IANA Stewardship Transition package to NTIA.


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}


[[Category:Glossary]]
 
[[Category:ICANN Bodies]]
[[Category:Cross-Community Working Groups]]

Latest revision as of 20:07, 5 January 2022

Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance
Status: Active
Issue Areas: Internet Governance
Date Established: November 2013
Charter: WG Charter
Workspace: Community Wiki

The Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance was created in November 2013 at ICANN 48 as a means of participation and engagement with upcoming Internet governance events, specifically NETmundial.[1] The CCWG had three initial charter members: the ccNSO; the gNSO; and ALAC; as well as members from the GAC, SSAC, and RSSAC.[1]

History[edit | edit source]

At ICANN 48, Fadi Chehade led a community discussion on preparations for the upcoming NETmundial meeting in Brazil.[2] Chehade initially proposed that the meeting might spur the SOs and ACs to create two CCWGs: one for collecting input on ICANN's participation in NETmundial, and one focused on the continued development of the 1net mailing list and refining its purpose as a platform for discussion of governance issues.[3] During the conversation, Milton Mueller, Bertrand de la Chapelle, and Olivier Crepin-Leblond all suggested that one CCWG focused on Internet governance was likely more appropriate. A number of commenters agreed that, although the scope and shape of ICANN's contributions to NETmundial and beyond were likely to grow and expand beyond the confines of any working group, a focus within ICANN would be useful.[3]

In December 2013, Evan Leibovitch submitted a proposed set of objectives, goals, and purposes of the CCWG.[4] The proposal was received positively, and formed the basis for the group's work during 2014. The original charter for the group was first ratified by the ccNSO in September 2014, and subsequently by the GNSO in October 2014.[5]. However, there were ongoing conversations regarding the purpose of both the working group and any charter document.[6] This led the working group to consider the possibility of acting as an "Engagement Group" instead.[6]

Although it is considered an active and ongoing working group, the CCWG-IG's activity has diminished since 2019.[7]

References[edit | edit source]

Country Code Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains (ICANN Bylaws).

At-Large Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN related to the interests of individual Internet users (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems (ICANN Bylaws).

Root Server System Advisory Committee. Advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System (ICANN Bylaws).

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Cross_Community_Working_Group_on_Internet_Governance&oldid=1341833"