June 2019 - comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19@icann.org

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Pending Ratification: ALAC Statement on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 13, 2019

June 13, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding the Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model<https://community.icann.org/x/NIWGBg>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by Steve DelBianco June 13, 2019

June 13, 2019

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model. This comment was drafted by Mark Datysgeld, with help from Zak Muscovitch, Jimson Olufuye, Andy Abrams, Marilyn Cade, John Berard, and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Public Comment re Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by Darcy Southwell June 13, 2019

June 13, 2019

Please see attached. __________ *Darcy Southwell *| Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart

1 0

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Please find my personal input and contribution to the current Public Comment
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 13, 2019

June 13, 2019

Attached <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_m…> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_m…>

1 0

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Comments from Center for Internet Governance, Tsinghua University for Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by Jinhe Liu June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

To whom it maybe concern, This is the comments from the Center for Internet Governance, Tsinghua University. See the attachment. I am not sure whether it is enough for just sending email to submit the comments. If more action required please contact me. Best wishes, Jinhe Liu —————————— 刘金河 Jinhe Liu 博士研究生 Ph.D. Candidate 清华大学新闻与传播学院 Tsinghua University School of Journalism and Communication 中国·北京 Beijing, China Tel: +86-178-8884-1558 E-mail: liujh16(a)mails.tsinghua.edu.cn

1 0

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Comments on evolving multistakeholder model
by Chokri Ben Romdhane June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019

Dear Friends, Please find attached my comments about evolving multistakeholder model. Friendly Chokri Ben Romdhane

1 0

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] ccNSO Council Statement: Evolving ICANN's Multistakeholder Model
by Katrina Sataki June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019

To whom it may concern, On behalf of the ccNSO Council I would like to submit the ccNSO Council statement on the Evolving ICANN's Multistakeholder Model. Kind regards, Katrina Sataki Chair of the ccNSO Council

1 0

[Comments-evolving-multistakeholder-model-25apr19] Evolving MSM
by John Laprise June 3, 2019

June 3, 2019

Quite frankly, the interests of end users and other groups are being short changed and in the end, this will be detrimental to ICANN's pursuit of its mission. The use of the DNS which ICANN acts as steward for has always been a consensual arrangement. Should any group feel that this arrangement is not working out, they will cast about for other arrangements be they organizational or technical. ICANN needs constituents to feel that they are being listened to, be they governments (e.g. ACTO), businesses (e.g. domainers), civil society (pick one), the technical community (SSAC & RSSAC) or end users. At present, many of these constituents fail to understand that the ICANN Board, after years of being attacked for ostensibly *making* policy has adopted a completely hands off approach and constituents find themselves saddled with making hard decisions with a clock not of their own making (ePDP). ICANN and others warned the community about this eventuality as did some elements of the community, nonetheless parts of the community chose for a variety of reasons to ignore this advice until it was no longer feasible. Moreover, ICANN's institutional challenges to bring it into compliance with national law is placing new stresses on an organization that under the aegis of the US, it could likely have largely ignored. This is no longer the case, for better or for worse. Constituents do not like to be told anything by ICANN but unfortunately this is the formers' problem. The empowered community (and I among them) argued forcefully in the IANA transition for strong community enforcement powers over the board to insure that it took it's responsibilities with due seriousness and gravity. We of course failed to look in the mirror and apply the same standard to ourselves. Rather than putting the interests of the global Internet first, all too many of us have instead elevated power, sovereignty, economics, or personal agendas/aggrandizement over the Greater Good. This must not be allowed to continue. Failure to address this will lead to not a fragmentation of the Internet but an unbounded abandonment of the DNS as we know it for some other, as of yet undefined and uncontrolled technology. While this may be an improvement, there is no guarantee that it will be and good reason to suspect that it will be a step backwards given the variety of selfish interests that even now argue over the state and fate of the DNS. There is no shortage of technical capacity to execute this either has even a casual perusal of the talent present within RSSAC, SSAC, IAB, and IETF remind us. ICANN's authority is, like currency, a shared illusion of sorts. If ICANN and the community are to advance our common mission and cause than the issues addressed in the At Large draft statement on process, participation, inter group relations, and accountability/transparency must all be addressed. Every stakeholder's first and perhaps hardest challenge is to honestly acknowledge their own interest, see how it aligns with the Greater Good of the Internet, and communicate that to others regardless of SO/AC. To be sure, there are stakeholders who have vastly different views of what the Greater Good looks like. For At Large and end users around the world, the Greater Good means making the Internet a doorway to a place where people can represent themselves as who they want to be without fear. To the degree that the DNS makes this easy, safe, reliable and inexpensive, end users embrace ICANN. From this articulation of values, it is clear that At Large has significant disagreements with those in other SO/ACs who seek to diminish or hinder this effort. I get that companies want to make a profit. I get that countries want to retain and enhance power. I get that organizations want to advance their missions. I get that end users want to be themselves. I've signed up with At Large and so my loyalty is to end users. -- John Laprise ALAC/NARALO

1 0