I think this is a key point that the CCWG-IG could capitalise on to continue its existence.

-James

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Sent: 03 July 2017 14:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG-IG/ Do we want a CCWG on Internet Governance?

One point I see of even growing importance is that such a CCWG-IG can prepare material for presentation in other (UN and non-UN) bodies to explain to them how the multistakeholder Internet Governance model works within ICANN and what are the "lessons learned" from the IANA transition. Such an outreach to non-ICANN communities seems to me an important aspect to enhance the understanding of the multistakeholder model among groups which have been pulled into the global Internet debate only recently. It is also needed to avoid new efforts by un-informed or bad-intended governments to re-open a discussion on governmental oversight over ICANN.

Wolfgang



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Desiree Miloshevic
Gesendet: Mo 03.07.2017 12:50
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG-IG/ Do we want a CCWG on Internet Governance?
 
+1 to Rafik's comments.

Deadline seems to focus people. 

> On 29 Jun 2017, at 13:14, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> As you know I am the NCSG rep on CCWG-IG. Here is an update on the status of CCWG-IG.
> 
> As a background ( and Bill can correct me if I am not right) CCWG-IG was created a couple of years ago and has made statements on Netmundial and been active on raising awareness about IANA transition and ICANN accountability in the IG environment. People perceive its work as an awareness raising group which should bridge the gap between ICANN staff and Community regarding their IG related activities and also be mindful of statements from Intergovernmental organizations that might meddle with ICANN mandate.
> 
> It usually organizes workshops at IGF, WSIS and other forums. ICANN staff has been very cooperative (especially Nigel Hickson) and are eager to work with the community for arranging such sessions. We also plan to be engaged with Board more.
> Find their report and charter: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275
> 
> There is, however, some controversy going on. Some groups are not happy with the work of ccwg-ig. Even after ccwg modified its charter to streamline its activities and its objectives, they still believe that CCWG might not be the right format for such activities. Some believe that CCWG-IG receives funding for its travel to various IG venues, which is not true. There is no funding for travel allocated to CCWG-IG. 
> 
> It has gotten to a point that we should now consult with our communities about whether CCWG-IG should continue its work and under what circumstances it should do so.
> 
> Lets have a conversation about it here and I will compile your comments and relay them to the group.
> 
> My opinion is that, CCWG-IG's members and participants should be active and should relay the work to their respective community. In many instances, when it comes to writing proposals and statements, very few people engage with activities. I think that has to be corrected. But I don't know how. 
> 
> Best 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farzaneh