[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Wed May 22 14:51:35 UTC 2019
On 22/05/2019 08:36, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Every other constituency in ICANN has already charged in on their
> white horses, imposing their will on ICANN's very way of operating.
> ALAC, seemingly alone, is actually embarrassed to say what it really
> thinks needs to be done. Our opening position on every issue is close
> to the existing consensus, no wonder we have neither clout nor respect.
> Of COURSE I don't expect that "the rest of the organization" will
> support our honest and principled stands on what ICANN must do to
> serve the public interest. What we want threatens the very existence
> of some of the Internet's worst rent-seekers. But if we don't lay down
> our own idea of a superior destination we have no chance of even
> starting a path to it.
It might be because we start from a position of weakness. I've mentioned
it before, but before Kobe, when the idea was circulated that there
should be fundamental changes made to ICANN's structure, and in
particular, the bi-cameral structure of the GNSO Council, it was
mentioned that this could signify civil war in the GNSO. And this got
everyone to retract. I guess the GNSO is too fundamentally important for
the majority of the community, for it to risk breaking apart. Can that
be said of the ALAC or the GAC?
In past months, I have actually attempted to find out how ICANN'
structure was changed from its 1.0 Board direct At-Large election model
to its 2.0 Board selected by its constituencies + NomCom model. Who
decided to make this change? Was it the Board itself? Why? Were there
any external powers involved? I realise that this was a long time ago
and methods might completely differ now as the dynamics are very
different, but if there is no path to an overall, holistic review of the
structure of the organisation, there is nothing that can be done from
the inside to evolve the organisation, apart from the tweaks that you so
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CPWG