[CPWG] Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Fri May 17 23:24:05 UTC 2019

Colleagues, in last Wednesday's CPWG call, I offered the following 
suggestions with respect to the comment on evolving the multistakeholder 

I grouped all 21 issues presented to us on the previous call inside 4 
categories -- explicitly recognizing that some of these things fit into 
various categories.

1. Structural issues -- Wholistic view (20); Complexity (2); Roles and 
responsibilities (15); Terms (21); Accountability (11);Transparency (12)

2. Process issues -- Precision in scoping (10); Prioritization (4); 
Efficient use of resources (16); Work processes (19); Costs (13); 
Consensus (9); Timing (1)

3. Participation issues -- Demographics (5); Recruitment (6); 
Representativeness (7); Inclusiveness (8); Volunteer burnout (17)

4. Intergroup relations -- Cultural issues (13); Trust (14); 
Silos/tribalism (18)

I then suggested that we take each category and present our thoughts on 
how we can address these issues -- paying attention to the fact that 
addressing one group of issues will impact issues in other groups. This 
way of proceeding seemed to meet the approval of those who were on the 

In continuation, during the call, we focussed on the "low hanging fruit" 
here -- namely category 4: Intergroup relations -- i.e the perceived 
lack of trust, tribalism and silos, etc. which can result in stalled 
processes that can go on forever and eventually lead nowhere or 
sometimes result in time consuming and unproductive negative 
interactions between groups and/or individuals.

Here are some suggestions offered for potential recommendations on how 
this group of issues might be addressed:

– that training in multistakeholder processes be an important part of 
onboarding activities

– that consensus be clearly defined and that all parties to a policy 
process commit to the the goal of achieving consensus

– that a culture of trust be supported by consequences for publicly 
disparaging other groups

– a commitment by ICANN to fully address the resource needs (both 
financial and human resources) of volunteer groups working in the SO/AC 

I have not yet had an opportunity to go back to the recording of the 
call so not all suggestions are reflected here. However, in the 
interests of moving the process along (deadline June 4), please use the 
suggestions offered here to begin a discussion on how we should respond 
to this call for comments.

Thank you


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190517/56063961/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CPWG mailing list