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

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue May 31 04:47:41 UTC 2016


Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-05-30 4:07, Matthew Shears wrote:
> 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.
> Matthew
> On Sunday, 29 May 2016, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net 
> <mailto: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
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20160531/84a9fb8d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list