[ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF workshop follow-up
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon May 30 15:42:39 UTC 2016
The posturing and sabre-rattling you see on Capitol Hill has less to do
with the cementing of the ICANN's multi-stakeholder model than fowls you
find with teeth.
The merchants and true believers of American exceptionalism as just as
misguided in thinking the real centres of power have changed. Not true at
all. But the effort to disabuse them would be not worth the while.
We started off with the NTIA telling us the acceptable endgame. Read the
historical documents and you see this was always in the plan. In my humble
opinion the community has delivered and to be brutally honest, I am not
bothered. For with all the changes , we are still at the place and I'd
preferentially take a gamble with California law and a federal district
judge as final arbiters.
Different day, a slight change in design implemented for the same dollar
So what of end users, the always poor country cousins in the ICANN
firmament? If you think the balance of power has changed in our favour,
then you should know I have title to the Brooklyn Bridge and am in the mood
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:53 AM, 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,
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance