[RSS GWG] Stakeholder discussion

[Fred Baker]

> On May 11, 2022, at 11:04 AM, Renard, Kenneth D CTR USARMY DEVCOM ARL (USA) via RSSGWG <rssgwg at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Last week’s discussion on RSS stakeholders was interesting and I was thinking about any other stakeholders that might be considered.  I could only come up with a group that [I believe] should NOT be a stakeholder, and that is “governments” (national governments, IGOs, etc).  I welcome any discussion on the topic, but if we do all feel strongly about it, then it might actually be worth mentioning governments explicitly as [non-]stakeholders.

I have a couple of questions/thoughts.

1) As an employee of a government, does this mean that you/your organization is by definition not a stakeholder?

2) As a rule, governments view themselves as empowered to speak on behalf of their respective peoples. The notable BRIC governments, Russia, China, Iran, and probably others, would very much see themselves there. This statement would appear to be a poke in their various eyes. In ICANN, I would expect pushback from the GAC on a statement to that effect, and in Europe, I might expect similar pushback from the European Commission or the European Parliament.

What I think you mean is that the RSS governance needs to be multi-stakeholder (e.g., inclusive of industry and civil society) as opposed to unilateral or multilateral, and that each of the voices needs to be heard and effective. Do you?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssgwg/attachments/20220511/5392394b/signature-0001.asc>