"Otherwise, the international perception of our unique experiment in multi-stakeholder governance will be undermined. Indeed the imbalances within the ICANN community – described and discussed in this paper – go well beyond dysfunctional consensus building, and nowadays have significant economic, political and social consequences which disproportionately privilege incumbent stakeholders at the expense of others, both present and in the future, within and beyond the ICANN structure.
The current review of
Evolving ICANN's Multi-stakeholder Model needs to look well beyond
the internal relationships between the Supporting Organisations and
Advisory Committees, and address the question as to how the present
arrangements are viewed more widely, elsewhere in the world.
In
most other regulated sectors of activity, companies and public
authorities expect the allocation and supervision of public resources
to benefit from decisions taken by independent agencies which are
normally careful to avoid conflicts of interest, insider trading or
collusion among incumbents. Insofar as ICANN is nowadays managing the
allocation, and supervising the use of, quite vast economic
resources, our present structure and performance likely appears to
many as quite unusual.
Thus, arguably, the declared advantages
of the multi-stakeholder model no longer outweigh, in our case, the
disadvantages arising from the particular structure that has evolved
in ICANN during the past two decades, and which are discussed in some
detail in this report. Accordingly the necessary
rebalancing of participation and powers within the ICANN organisation
is in fact an essential factor in global internet Governance (IG) at
large. It would also enhance the efficiency and transparency of our decisions and policies."
On 29 May 2019, at 02:40, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:_______________________________________________Hello cpwg members. Please take a look at the google doc re: comment on the MS model BEFORE the call. There is a document, and there are comments on the document you might want to address. If no one has issues with the document or with my responses to comments made to the document, then we won't have much to discuss. I don't have any slides to present. The document itself will be our reference point.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13nLdYeIB2wbTERgBdiE55z0RnM69F-nSXbrF4RwUZaQ/edit
Thanks
Marita
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on._______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.