[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed May 22 14:23:30 UTC 2019

Thanks. Excellent material. It goes a long way to addressing the 
shifting ground that has got ICANN to this point. I think that some of 
the white paper on future challenges does and should be used in our 
current discussions re the MS model. Currently, there is a proposal in 
the intergroup issues that suggests that power imbalances need to be 
addressed -- but it could be put in a larger frame as something that 
cuts across structural and process issues as well.


On 5/21/2019 3:46 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> https://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/future-challenges-white-paper-17sep12-en.pdf
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GIWLITB63MNZcG769aceEpTZc23UASdKA5ZS3MUx2WI/edit?usp=sharing
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 14:06, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net 
> <mailto:mmoll at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>     If anyone would point me to the two white papers that Evan
>     mentions in his message below, it would be a useful addition to
>     our submission to be able to reference these.
>     Marita
>     On 5/18/2019 4:37 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>     Evan, as much as some people (and I count myself among them) feel
>>     that the overall ICANN model needs to be changed to address the
>>     types of issues you list in your bullet points below, that is not
>>     what this exercise is about.
>>     As the name implies, this is _evolution_ to increase the
>>     effectiveness of the current model and not a complete reorg. That
>>     may make it less than useful in the minds of some, but that is
>>     what it is.
>>     It is not the only such exercise going on. There is one purely
>>     within the GNSO which addresses some of these same problems but
>>     has the potential for worsening some things (including
>>     participation of non-GNSO groups/entities which some view as
>>     impeding the PDP process).
>>     Is this current process sufficient to address the larger
>>     problems? No (in my mind). But can it provide useful change
>>     without increasing the overall structural problems? I hope so.
>>     Alan
>>     At 18/05/2019 01:58 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>>     Hi Marita,
>>>     I apologize for not making the call. I am very interested in
>>>     this topic, but even more interested in not having my time wasted.
>>>     As has been expressed before, I am extremely skeptical that the
>>>     status quo can be disrupted purely from the inside.  There have
>>>     been quite a few exercises of this kind before, even high
>>>     profile moves such as the ATRT and independence from the US
>>>     government have been tortuous but led to little real change in
>>>     the way decisions are made. I could even make the case that the
>>>     IANA transition has worsened the status of stakeholders outside
>>>     the compact of domain buyers and domain sellers. What is the
>>>     assurance (or even broad confidence) that the results of any new
>>>     work would be heeded?  What are the consequences to ICANN of yet
>>>     again ignoring the calls to distribute power more broadly or
>>>     address its many fundamental breeches of public trust?
>>>     There are a few key components of ICANN governance that, so long
>>>     as they exist, render all talk of real change aspirational at best.
>>>       * So long as GNSO consensus policy binds the ICANN Board, the
>>>         rest of us are essentially powerless.
>>>       * So long as ICANN's revenue comes solely from domain
>>>         acquisition, it is by definition in a conflict of interest
>>>         in setting domain policy.
>>>       * So long as domain sellers sit on both sides of the
>>>         negotiating table in development of the RAA and other
>>>         instruments of domain regulation, ICANN cannot be trusted to
>>>         act impartially.
>>>       * So long ICANN is accountable to nobody but its core
>>>         conflicted community, it will successfully resist change.
>>>         "Empowered" my eye.
>>>     ALAC has diligently participated in multiple previous "fix the
>>>     MSM" efforts which have yielded no significant result. Two white
>>>     papers produced by ALAC members were ignored without so much as
>>>     acknowledgement of their existence. In this context, exactly how
>>>     serious is this latest iteration? A new turnover of ALAC members
>>>     provides fresh hope and maybe even new insights, but lack of
>>>     institutional memory simply indicates new iterations of old
>>>     efforts that have proven to fail. We hit the most solid of walls
>>>     whenever intention tries to turn to execution.
>>>     This just feels so much like ICANN is Lucy and ALAC is Charlie
>>>     Brown. Maybe if we try kicking the football again, this time it
>>>     will work.....
>>>     What's different this time?
>>>     - Evan
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     CPWG mailing list
>>>     CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     registration-issues-wg mailing list
>>>     registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>     <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg 
>     _______________________________________________
>     CPWG mailing list
>     CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>     _______________________________________________
>     GTLD-WG mailing list
>     GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>     Working Group direct URL:
>     https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
> @evanleibovitch or @el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190522/d951f3f9/attachment.html>

More information about the CPWG mailing list