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

Matthew Shears mshears at cdt.org
Mon May 30 08:07:22 UTC 2016

I like Sam's points a lot.  And this may actually give us a chance to talk
more broadly about the Internet governance Eco-system post transition.  We
tend to talk about the component parts of the IG space but perhaps post
transition this is an opportunity to talk about it more holistically, a
little bit of tea leaves reading in terms of the future of the MS model in
the IG ecosystem, the lessons learned from the transition, the role of
governments, multilateral vs Multistakeholder,  etc.


On Sunday, 29 May 2016, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

> 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/20160530/5d260137/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list