October 2019 - comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19@icann.org

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] Ratified: ALAC Statement on Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 18, 2019

Oct. 18, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model<https://community.icann.org/x/G5DkBg>. Content of the statement remains unchanged. Ratification information is included on the cover page. 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-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency comments re Improving the Effectiveness of ICANN's MSM
by Brian Scarpelli Oct. 17, 2019

Oct. 17, 2019

On behalf of the GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency, please find attached comments on improving the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model. Best regards, Brian Scarpelli Senior Global Policy Counsel +1 517-507-1446<mailto:+1%20517-507-1446> | bscarpelli(a)actonline.org<mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org> ACT | The App Association 1401 K St NW (Ste 501) Washington, DC 20005

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] Brief Comments of Anne Aikman-Scalese on the Evolution of the Multi-Stakeholder Model
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

Thank you for the extended deadline in relation to the Multi-Stakeholder Model Evolution. My comments are my own and not those of my law firm or any client or other interested party. Notwithstanding the fact that the work that has been done was initiated in accordance with a Strategic Objective, the work to be done in future on the eight issues identified in the evolution of the Multi-Stakeholder Model, including possible revisions/improvements to that Model should all be reviewed against the following: ICANN's Renewed Vision ICANN'S Approved Strategic Plan ICANN's Approved Strategic Objectives This review will be important in order for outcomes in the work on the Model to align with the principles contained in the Strategic Plan that was adopted by the ICANN Board. By way of example, if the Renewed Vision states that ICANN's process will be "OPEN" (as it does), will the appointment of a representative group of Chairs of the SOs and ACs meet this value stated in the Renewed Vision? Representative governance is in fact a very different model from the current process that values individual participants equally with the officers of established SOs and ACs. If ICANN elects to pursue a representative governance model in the PDP policy process or in Cross-Community Working Groups, there is a risk that valuable individual Minority Views will be lost and/or overwhelmed. It will also be much harder for new participants to have an influence on Internet policy. ICANN already struggles with new participants feeling like "outsiders" due to the specialized language and acronyms and the time it takes to get "up to speed" on organizational dynamics and decision-making. The barriers to effective participation by newcomers should not be increased. Accordingly, each entity appointed to address an issue identified in the projects for the Evolving the Multi-Stakeholder Model, should, as an obligatory first step, be required to assess the task to be accomplished in relation to the ICANN Renewed Vision, Strategic Plan, and Strategic Objectives. This exercise should help to focus the work and to ensure that the work to be accomplished is consistent with longer term goals. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Anne Aikman-Scalese Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D5843F.403DB690] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D5843F.403DB690] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] Comments on Evolving ICANN's Multistakeholder Model
by Brian Cute Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

I submit these comments which reflect recent conversations I have had with Community members concerning the Evolving ICANN's Multistakeholder Model process for purposes of transparency and the record of the process. *Brian Cute* *Principal* *The Eastham Group* Direct: 571.439.9496 Website: www.theeasthamgroup.com Email: brian(a)easthamgroup.com PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] RrSG response on the Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by Zoe Bonython Oct. 16, 2019

Oct. 16, 2019

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) I would like to submit the attached response on the Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] Multistakeholder Model Next Steps Public Comment
by Christian Dawson Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

Comments from the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition) On Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition) appreciates the opportunity to comment on ICANN's Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model report, filed 20 August, 2019. The i2Coalition’s diverse membership represents both large and small Internet infrastructure providers such as web hosting companies, software services providers, data centers, registrars and registries. The i2Coalition has several key goals within ICANN, but chief among them is continuing to build a voice for underrepresented parts of the Internet ecosystem – in particular web hosts, data centers and cloud infrastructure providers – and ensuring that accountability and transparency are paramount. The i2Coalition brings unique representation to ICANN as it is made up of companies representing the broad ecosystem of Internet infrastructure companies. General Response Comments We appreciate the extensive work done to date on this subject. i2Coalition agrees that duplication of work, inconsistent prioritization, and siloed problem-solving are significant issues within the ICANN community, and we welcome a dialogue to find solutions to those issues. For each issue area, we have provided encouraging and guiding notes to Facilitator Observations throughout, as ICANN seeks to synthesize Facilitator work and draw conclusions and actions from this work. Issue Response Comments Issue 1 - Prioritization of work Comments: We have no specific comments at this time on this matter. Prioritization: • Is fully addressed by solution being developed in another workstream. Issue 2 - Precision in Scoping Work Comments: With respect to the scope of the policy development process we have no specific comments at this time on this matter, but continue to support the GNSO’s PDP 3.0 development process. Another scope-related issue pertains to the various review processes which have grown both in number and in scope. While the bylaws establish procedural guidelines for Specific Reviews the scope of the review is not clearly established and the procedures are less clearly fixed than the GNSO PDP. We strongly believe that the PDP remains the vehicle by which all binding policies governing generic names should be developed. The recent tendency to advance policy changes through Specific Reviews, rather than the PDP undermines effective scoping, prioritization, and efficiency. Because reviews are not necessarily held to the same procedural checks that are built into the PDP they may end up prioritizing changes that, at best, do not reflect the highest-priority areas of change for the GNSO or, at worst, actually run counter to the community’s interests. Reviews should be a chance to take stock of particular aspects of ICANN and identify what is working and what is not. To the extent review teams identify necessary changes as part of that review, they should be advanced using the GNSO PDP which has greater checks and balances. Requiring all policy change to pass through the PDP will also force the community to prioritize what matters most in selecting what topics should be advanced as issue reports and PDPs rather than allowing some topics to short-circuit policy development through the review process. More generally, ICANN’s bylaws refer to “coordinating the development and implementation of policies for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS…” As part of both initiating policy development work and finalizing recommendations, the community should actively consider whether policies are reasonable and required to serve one or more of these objectives. We believe that a more conscientious check on whether policy development is reasonably necessary could narrow the overall scope of work being pursued. In addition to limiting police development to the areas were it is required, we believe that careful attention to the need to make policies flexible and adaptable would minimize the need to redo work to adjust to changes in technology or legal contexts. Prioritization: • Review scoping must be addressed in the Evolving ICANN’s MSM Work Plan. Issue 3 – Efficient Use of Resources and Costs Comments: We have no specific comments at this time on this matter. Prioritization: • Is fully addressed by solution being developed in another workstream. Issue 4 - Roles and Responsibilities and a Holistic View of ICANN Comments: The community worked very hard on formalizing a clear mission. Efforts continue on an ongoing basis to expand our role beyond it. New procedures don’t need to be made to deal with this, we just need to keep our Board, staff, and GNSO leaders educated about the mission, and ensure they take on an active role in reviewing ongoing projects against that mission and decline initiatives that would take us beyond it. One of the largest problems we face seems to be that, even within the MSM Work Plan, there is no central repository that allows the community to easily understand and cross-reference all that we are currently engaged in. It’s the responsibility of the ICANN organization to build a centralized structure wherein workstreams can be organized and easily vetted to be determined to be within scope. It needs to be the responsibility of each SO and AC, and, in circumstances where the Board initiates processes the ICANN Board, to show that the new work: • falls within the scope of ICANN’s mission • is not being duplicated elsewhere • is appropriately integrated with other active workstreams • solicits public comments in a centralized fashion Anybody who wants to call on volunteers or community feedback should need to meet those requirements to be entered into a centralized system that unlocks access to community resources. Prioritization: • Should be discussed and addressed at a later time. Issue 5 – Representation, Inclusivity, Recruitment and Demographics Comments: Disparate work is being done across the ICANN community on these important issues. It feels siloed, and less effective than if the same issues were being tackled in a holistic manner. Further, initiatives like the Fellowship and NextGen programs that are designed to bring new talent into ICANN community often end up operating in silos of their own. Rather than learning about ICANN through immersion and collaboration with the community, these newcomers to ICANN primarily attend their own slate of sessions. We believe a more integrated approach to these programs could enhance their effectiveness, both in terms of educating newcomers and in ensuring they come back after their programs’ conclusions. Prioritization: • Must be addressed in the Evolving ICANN’s MSM Work Plan. Issue 6 - Culture + Trust + Silos Comments: Issue 5 and Issue 6 are intertwined. Together, they represent a larger conversation this community needs to have that no other existing programs effectively address. This is likely the most important conclusion from the Facilitator’s report, and we encourage next steps to further explore these combined issues. Many of the other recommended improvements will actually result in improvements in this area. Effective prioritization, standardization, transparency, etc., can also serve to improve these issues. Prioritization: • Should be discussed and addressed at a later time. Issue 7 – Complexity Comments: We have no specific comments at this time on this matter. Prioritization: • Is fully addressed by solution being developed in another workstream. Issue 8 – Consensus Comments: We have no specific comments at this time on this matter, but continue to support the GNSO’s PDP 3.0 development process. Prioritization: • Is fully addressed by solution being developed in another workstream. Concluding Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to engaging further on this work as it continues.

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] Fw: Endurance International Comment re Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by Eleeza Agopian Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

?Forwarding submission from Endurance International Group. ? ________________________________ From: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell(a)endurance.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 1:48 PM To: Eleeza Agopian Subject: [Ext] Endurance International Comment re Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model Attached please find our public comment re the Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model. Best, Darcy Southwell __________ Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer [signature_729768375]

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] ME Space members public comment
by Hadia El Miniawi Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Dear Sirs, Kindly find attached the ME Space members’ comment on the document about the work plan and the next steps to improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s MSM. Kind regards Hadia Elminiawi ME space member Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] ME Space members' comment
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Dear Sirs, Kindly find attached the ME Space members' comment on the next steps to improve the effectiveness of ICANN's MSM. Best Hadia Elminiawi ME Space member

1 0

[Comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19] ME Space members comment
by Hadia El Miniawi Oct. 14, 2019

Oct. 14, 2019

Dear Sirs, Kindly find attached the ME Space members' comment on the next steps to improve the effectiveness of ICANN's MSM BestHadia ElMiniawiME Space member

1 0