[ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF workshop follow-up
nigel.hickson at icann.org
Tue May 31 07:05:36 UTC 2016
This seems to be shaping in a coherent fashion to enable a submission to MAG; which in itself is not a trivial process; a but like applying for a job. What we do need, however, is contributors / panelsits; these have to be listed along with a moderator on application. We need to finalise this by Friday to allow a submission by 6th June;
From: <ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Date: Tuesday 31 May 2016 06:47
To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] KIND REMINDER: Re: IGF workshop follow-up
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.
On Sunday, 29 May 2016, Sam Lanfranco <<mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>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.
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?
ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance