Thank you, Evan, for providing this wonderful document "A Call for ICANN to Embrace its Inner Regulator". It is hereby attached for anybody interested, and the following is a quote from it: The first step in solving any problem lies in the admission that a problem exists. The next step is the recognition that ICANN must assume the role analogous to that of a regulator, that it is so well positioned to be. In its aim to achieve international acceptance as a regulatory body, ICANN must be prepared for significant change that more effectively asserts the public interest as the catalyst of, rather than the response to, ICANN policy. In particular, while the multi-stakeholder model needs to be maintained, its current form should be inverted -- that the public interest bodies initiate policy directions and the industry serves in an advisory function. In summary: ● Denial of regulatory function prevents ICANN from sufficiently serving the public interest; ● In the absence of a regulatory authority, ICANN has been captured by the industry it has the duty to oversee, and has become dependent on its growth regardless of public- interest consequences; ● This situation has isolated ICANN from the public it is supposed to serve, provoking both public authority and the marketplace to actively seek alternatives to an ICANN-managed DNS; ● ICANN must recognize this deficiency and assume a role analogous to that of a regulator -- refocused on the public interest -- if it is to maintain its position of preference amongst the alternatives. ● Such a refocus demands redefining the global public interest as the initiator and driver of ICANN policy rather than its current status of reactive adviso Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Evan Leibovitch To: Kan Kaili Cc: ICANN At-Large list ; Johan Helsingius Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Every ICANN president has vigorously asserted that ICANN is not a regulator. This is not merely a casual opinion, it is a demand imposed upon them by ICANN's lawyers. To admit that ICANN is a regulator - - or even provides some regulatory function - - is to invite even deeper state scrutiny and attempts to make ICANN into a multilateral, treaty-based body than now exists. In a submission to ICANN's Accountability and Transparency review team more than a decade ago, a number of At-Large members submitted an analysis that called on ICANN to recognize the obvious and embrace its inner regulator: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-02apr13/pdfNKvEtbrZ3u.pdf Not much has changed. While a few references are dated, the paper's observations and commentaries are as valid now as then. ___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56 On Jul 13, 2018 5:13 PM, "Kan Kaili" <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote: Indeed Goran has said "ICANN is not a regulator" many times. I have heard him saying that myself. However, this is something I disagree with him. Again, in my personal opinion, as long as the positioning of ICANN stays blurry as it is now, the confusion will only accumulate until it creats a crisis. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista > On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote: >> In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. > > Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats > fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them. > > Julf > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org