[ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF workshop follow-up

Sam Lanfranco sam at lanfranco.net
Sun May 29 16:53:08 UTC 2016


I would like to add an additional dimension to the useful comments made 
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, and that is the need for *a clear 
understanding by those outside ICANN , IANA and NTIA about the limits to 
the ICANN remit*. Some of the concerns expressed by those questioning 
the transition and accountability plans are actually concerns about 
issues that reside outside ICANN’s remit.

The transition is likely to more sharply define the scope and limits of 
the ICANN remit, and that is good. However, it would unfortunate if 
objections were allowed to stand against the proposed structure and 
operation of the ICANN multistakeholder model, when the policy issues in 
question are outside ICANN’s remit, and would in any event have to be 
decided in other venues.

In addition to patiently explaining the strengths of the proposed 
multistakeholder model within ICANN’s remit, we have to explain what 
ICANN is not, so that others do not assess it in terms of its abilities 
to address issues that are outside ICANN’s own actual remit.

Sam Lanfranco


On 5/29/2016 6:03 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestion Farzaneh.
>
> I am also concerned about it being rejected, of course. I thought that 
> having a focus on the multistakeholder model would give it more chance 
> to succeed - as in:
> 1. this is an example of a specific multistakeholder model having 
> succeeded in coming up with an operational plan: and
> 2. the plan was to make the organisation accountable to its own 
> communities
>
> (1) has real impact on Internet Governance because opponents of the 
> multistakeholder model often criticise if for not being able to take 
> any decisions. We often hear that a multi-lateral model is needed when 
> decisions need to be made and certainly when anything remotely 
> operational (by opposition to something theoretical) is to be addressed.
> (2) is a real novelty. Traditionalists usually look up to a higher 
> authority to which an organisation is accountable to - and the 
> question remains "to whom is the higher authority accountable to?" But 
> in the accountability plan, we see the novelty of what I would call a 
> circular accountability, being accountable to the communities that 
> select the leaders. Isn't this something novel enough for the MAG to 
> allow this session to take place?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160529/d9f25f88/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list