[ccwg-internet-governance] Some notes on the previoius CCWG-IG adobe meeting

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Apr 26 16:53:38 UTC 2017

Very good points, Sam. Thank you!


On 26/04/2017 18:32, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> This is a short comment endorsing the core of what Bill has said here.
> The multistakeholder model is alive in ICANN, and has some small
> tentative presence elsewhere. The ILO has a very structured tripartite
> stakeholder model. But, MS is generally little known as a policy
> making and/or governance model.  There is little, if any, discussion
> elsewhere of its applicability, its strengths, and its weaknesses in
> other settings. There is even a fair amount of criticism of MS as
> being non (or anti-) democratic.
> At our end of the ICANN model, the non-commercial, non-profit and
> civil society stakeholders, there is respect for how hard the
> constituencies work. There is also criticism, even though we are
> careful to say that the NCSG participants represent “the interests of
> constituencies”.  We do not represent constituencies since there is no
> formal (representational, democratic, multistakeholder)
> accountability. This is a vulnerable plank in the multistakeholder
> ship of governance.  We just do our best to represent the
> public/common good.
> Whether this goes forward as a panel or a roundtable, I would suggest
> that the lead participants spend time hammering out what is almost
> like an ICANN Charter to focus the event, and make it available as
> pre-orientation for participants. 
> Sam L.
> On 4/26/2017 3:23 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> Fair question, Matt.  But from the standpoint of someone who lives in
>> Geneva and floats in UN spaces, it’s a reasonable bet that some
>> governments and stakeholders still don’t necessarily “know” it in the
>> sense of fully believing and embracing it. They may have accepted
>> that this is the deal now but it’s not necessarily the one they’d
>> have selected if, say, they could have all voted on it in a
>> ‘hospitable’ forum.  While the case may seem old and obvious to those
>> of us who’ve talked about in ICANN forever, to people outside the
>> bubble it may be less clear.
>> One would think that your generalizability question could usefully be
>> built into this, so there’d be a narrative flow from the DNS case to
>> the larger implications in other IG policy spaces at the back end.
>>  It’s notable that the governments that have championed MS for DNS
>> have not been willing to embrace it in other issue-areas like trade
>> and inter-state security, and that and related questions would be
>> worth probing.  (something I’m writing about so I among probably
>> others would be interested in speaking to it)
>> If instead we turned the latter part around and put a singular focus
>> on 'MS approaches elsewhere' then we’d probably need to recruit
>> experts from those ‘elsewheres' to talk about how MS is or isn’t
>> playing out. I wonder if we’d have the bandwidth and contacts to do
>> that properly in the time that remains before the submission
>> deadline, one week from today.
>> Could we square the circle by retitling, like ‘Multistakeholder
>> governance of the domain name system: lessons learned and
>> implications for other Internet governance issues’?  Just a thought…
>> I’d think the pressing thing at this point is to see who from this
>> community actually plans to be at the IGF and would want to
>> participate.  When we know what we have to work with in terms of
>> talking heads we can fine tune the description to fit the available
>> skill sets and interests. A key thing for MAG approval will be
>> diversity of participants —gender/geo/stakeholder group etc.
>> BTW my suggestion for this would be to do a Roundtable format rather
>> than a Panel.  A roundtable typically has like 15 participants, so we
>> could accommodate a diversity of views from CCWIG into a moderated
>> interactive dialogue with some guiding questions agreed online in
>> advance.  This is what we did a couple years ago in Joao P, where I
>> moderated a CCWIG session on the transition. If instead we pick a
>> panel, then we have to struggle over which five people would come do
>> prepared remarks etc.  More hassle, less fun.
>> Two cents,
>> Bill
>>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 07:17, Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com
>>> <mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>> wrote:
>>> Are we convinced that this is really that appealing a workshop?  We
>>> know MS works for the DNS.  We always talk about looking at ICANN as
>>> a best practice for using MS approaches elsewhere - could we not
>>> explore expanding the learnings of the MS model in ICANN into other
>>> pressing policy areas?  
>>> Matthew
>>> On 26/04/2017 06:45, Nigel Hickson wrote:
>>>> Colleagues
>>>> Good morning.  Just wanted to flag that in order to put in a
>>>> submission on this (to meet deadline of 3^rd  May) we will need
>>>> some further progress on this (though think there is quite a bit of
>>>> material here).  
>>>> As has been noted we need to flag (in submission to MAG) the
>>>> panellists for session (so need a few more names) and have their
>>>> approval for such. 
>>>> Should we perhaps do a brief Call on Friday / Monday on this; happy
>>>> to facilitate; 
>>>> Best
>>>> Nigel
>>>> *From: *<ccwg-internet-governance-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>>>> William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>>> *Date: *Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 10:08
>>>> *To: *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>>>> *Cc: *ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] Some notes on the
>>>> previoius CCWG-IG adobe meeting
>>>>     On Apr 22, 2017, at 00:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>>>     <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>>>>     This proposal hasn't progressed much since Farzaneh has shared
>>>>     the Google Doc. Please be so kind to take a few minutes to
>>>>     contribute.
>>>> Suggested edits made
>>>> Best
>>>> Bill
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>>>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>> -- 
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> matthew at intpolicy.com
>>> +447712472987
>>> Skype:mshears
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>> ************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
>> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>  邦有道,贫且贱焉,耻也。邦无道,富且贵焉,耻也
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170426/62af1a2d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list