[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Evolving MSM
jlaprise at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 15:02:56 UTC 2019
Quite frankly, the interests of end users and other groups are being short
changed and in the end, this will be detrimental to ICANN's pursuit of its
mission. The use of the DNS which ICANN acts as steward for has always been
a consensual arrangement. Should any group feel that this arrangement is
not working out, they will cast about for other arrangements be they
organizational or technical.
ICANN needs constituents to feel that they are being listened to, be they
governments (e.g. ACTO), businesses (e.g. domainers), civil society (pick
one), the technical community (SSAC & RSSAC) or end users. At present, many
of these constituents fail to understand that the ICANN Board, after years
of being attacked for ostensibly *making* policy has adopted a completely
hands off approach and constituents find themselves saddled with making
hard decisions with a clock not of their own making (ePDP). ICANN and
others warned the community about this eventuality as did some elements of
the community, nonetheless parts of the community chose for a variety of
reasons to ignore this advice until it was no longer feasible. Moreover,
ICANN's institutional challenges to bring it into compliance with national
law is placing new stresses on an organization that under the aegis of the
US, it could likely have largely ignored. This is no longer the case, for
better or for worse. Constituents do not like to be told anything by ICANN
but unfortunately this is the formers' problem. The empowered community
(and I among them) argued forcefully in the IANA transition for strong
community enforcement powers over the board to insure that it took it's
responsibilities with due seriousness and gravity. We of course failed to
look in the mirror and apply the same standard to ourselves. Rather than
putting the interests of the global Internet first, all too many of us have
instead elevated power, sovereignty, economics, or personal
agendas/aggrandizement over the Greater Good. This must not be allowed to
Failure to address this will lead to not a fragmentation of the Internet
but an unbounded abandonment of the DNS as we know it for some other, as of
yet undefined and uncontrolled technology. While this may be an
improvement, there is no guarantee that it will be and good reason to
suspect that it will be a step backwards given the variety of selfish
interests that even now argue over the state and fate of the DNS. There is
no shortage of technical capacity to execute this either has even a casual
perusal of the talent present within RSSAC, SSAC, IAB, and IETF remind us.
ICANN's authority is, like currency, a shared illusion of sorts.
If ICANN and the community are to advance our common mission and cause than
the issues addressed in the At Large draft statement on process,
participation, inter group relations, and accountability/transparency must
all be addressed. Every stakeholder's first and perhaps hardest challenge
is to honestly acknowledge their own interest, see how it aligns with the
Greater Good of the Internet, and communicate that to others regardless of
SO/AC. To be sure, there are stakeholders who have vastly different views
of what the Greater Good looks like.
For At Large and end users around the world, the Greater Good means making
the Internet a doorway to a place where people can represent themselves as
who they want to be without fear. To the degree that the DNS makes this
easy, safe, reliable and inexpensive, end users embrace ICANN. From this
articulation of values, it is clear that At Large has significant
disagreements with those in other SO/ACs who seek to diminish or hinder
I get that companies want to make a profit.
I get that countries want to retain and enhance power.
I get that organizations want to advance their missions.
I get that end users want to be themselves.
I've signed up with At Large and so my loyalty is to end users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19