[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.
Marita
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