Exactly. I have recently been involved in some high-level consultations on IG, and when discussing models of effective multistakeholder participation, ICANN's is never raised as a positive example. Netmundial is usually offered as a preferred approach, as are bicameral models featuring separate but co-dependent commercial/government bodies (think ICAO/IATA). Heck, even the hum-fests at IETF are considered a better method of community-building and decision-making.

Whatever ICANN calls its model, it does not appear to be a foundation of interest in the next generation of governance of anything. Its only champions are those inside the ICANN bubble who (a) profit from it or (b) are too emotionally invested to view it critically.

While the DNS infrastructure is still a critical part of the Internet, "memorable domain names" are not.
The former is well-managed by ICANN's technical advisory committees, though I suggest those are more expert-driven than multistakeholder.

The latter is an obtuse mess, accountable really to nobody outside ICANN except the California AG, that uses (what it calls) multistakeholderism as a smokescreen to enable an industry to regulate itself. It just might be the forerunner of what Silicon Valley now calls "permissionless innovation", except there's precious little actual innovation going on.

Bottom line: ICANN is getting ever more complex at governing a component of the Internet that is becoming ever less relevant. Nobody on the outside advocates for ICANN to overhaul its models and processes because nobody outside the bubble really cares ... so long as RSAC, SSAC etc fulfil their roles.

Despite its best efforts ICANN has not destroyed the appeal of multistakeholderism, but it does offer a shining example of what not to do. Expect the concept to take very different forms in governance structures for the future being developed at WSIS and elsewhere.

Evan Leibovitch

Toronto