There are many forms of stakeholderism. Some, like Netmundial's, have potential to be sustainable and adaptable for other environments. Other models, developed in standards-making environments, provide examples as diverse as the IETF's and ISO's.
And then there's ICANN's inmates-running-the-asylum model, by far worst of the bunch, in numerous ways explicitly designed to serve industry at the expense of the public interest. For all of its A&T noise the world has seen that ICANN's only real external accountability is to the California Attorney-General.
It is no coincidence that for most international treaties, the ICANN script is flipped; it is governments and public-interest groups who set the agenda while industry advises. Without the backing of such treaties, ICANN's decisions survive only because of governmental tolerance rather than validation. And as a result of said lack of validation, we have issues arise such as we have in this thread: "ICANN-approved" gTLDs which are ignored by significant swaths of the Internet (and without anyone realizing it for YEARS).
How can anyone be surprised? It is notable that even this shocking news was revealed by an industry-insider website and has received no mainstream coverage of which I'm aware. Nobody outside the ICANN bubble cares.
And this is ICANN at peak respect. As globalization declines, ICANN's lack of treaty backing is going to prove even more costly to international connectivity as time passes. It's going to get worse, not better.
- Evan