Michael Palage’s post raises important concerns, but its alarmist tone and partial analysis present a one-sided and ultimately incomplete view of ICANN’s current challenges. While the recent actions of the ICANN Board—particularly the continued deferral of ATRT4—are indeed troubling and warrant close scrutiny, we must be cautious about drawing conclusions that undermine the multistakeholder model without a full and balanced assessment.
The Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT) is not optional—it is a foundational element of ICANN’s legitimacy and its bylaws. Delays in its implementation must not be normalized or dismissed as mere procedural adjustments. Transparency and accountability are not negotiable, and their erosion, whether by omission or design, places the entire model at risk.
That said, some of the points raised in the article require further examination, correction, and contextualization. For instance, while it is fair to criticize inefficiencies in ICANN's policy development processes, equating those challenges with a systemic failure or an irredeemable “slide” into becoming a trade association oversimplifies the dynamics at play. Moreover, while stakeholder composition and economic incentives must be analyzed critically, we must avoid casting entire groups as obstructive or self-interested without also recognizing the structural imbalances or governance gaps that have allowed these dynamics to persist.
Instead of fueling division or amplifying distrust, we should use this moment to call for a renewed and inclusive commitment to reform—one that ensures the ATRT continues without further delay, and that the multistakeholder model regains both its effectiveness and credibility. ICANN must rise to this challenge and demonstrate that it remains a serious, trustworthy, and community-driven organization. The voices of all stakeholders—especially those not economically vested—must be heard, supported, and protected. my 2 cents.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre