[ALAC] Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial

[León Felipe Sánchez Ambía]

Dear all,

I like Olivier’s idea and support Alan’s suggested statement.

On another track, I believe that we also need to make a statement on the final document, apart from the CCWG submission. I will gladly hold the pen to draft that statement if you are ok with it and consider we should make a statement.


all the best,



León

El 30/04/2014, a las 03:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> escribió:

> Dear Evan,
> 
> that's not what the Public Comment period is about. It asks about the
> Statement of the CCWG which was sent to NetMundial. I support Alan's
> suggestion to have a short Statement endorsing the CCWG's report but we
> cannot use this to congratulate organizers and participants in a meeting.
> 
> That said, we can include in the Statement that we support the operation
> of the WG, we welcome the funding of participants to NetMundial and call
> upon ICANN to continue supporting participants financially in future
> meetings like NetMundial and the Internet Governance Forum.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> On 30/04/2014 07:06, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> Actually, now that the conference is over I believe that a new ALAC
>> response is in order; one that congratulates the organizers and the
>> participants for their innovation in approaching governance. We should
>> (IMO) also endorse the final statement (while indicating areas where we
>> would have preferred stronger language).
>> 
>> I am happy to help craft such a statement, when I return from dealing with
>> personal matters at the end of this week.
>> On Apr 29, 2014 11:54 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> I have re-read the statement submitted to NETmundial. I believe that the
>>> ALAC can easily say that it supports the process by which this statement
>>> was developed as well as the full contents.
>>> 
>>> However, as events unfolded, with the exception of the concept of
>>> multistakeholderism, the issues on which the CCWG statement raised were not
>>> the issues that NETmundial focused on, nor were they central to the
>>> NETmundial outcomes document. In consideration of that and the lack of any
>>> other public comments submitted, I believe that there is no need for the
>>> ALAC to submit a statement.
>>> 
>>> Should the ALAC nonetheless feel that a submission is necessary, I suggest:
>>> 
>>> The ALAC would like to go on record as supporting the process that the
>>>> CCWG followed in drafting this statement, and supports the CCWG statement
>>>> submitted to NETmundial.
>>>> 
>>> See https://community.icann.org/x/lzbRAg
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ALAC mailing list
>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>> 
>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
>>> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)