Milton acknowledges existing dysfunctions - slow policy development, organizational bloat, and inefficient review mechanisms - but fundamentally supports the current multistakeholder model, particularly post-IANA transition reforms. In watching, reading and listening to him over time, here is what I have extracted:
- He believes the IANA Transition was necessary and strengthened accountability through structural reforms (Empowered Community, IRP, etc.)
- He seems to accept multistakeholder governance as the ideal model although some stakeholder groups (e.g., IPCC, GAC) exert disproportionate influence or behave like industry lobbies
- He rejects the notion of ICANN as a trade association on condition if it were, it would likely be less susceptible to procedural gridlock
- He is wary of imposing a regulatory posture for ICANN and is ever vigilant for what I call regulatory overhead
- He thinks post-transition reforms are more legitimate and structurally sound than is usually acknowledged
- He is wobbly on sustaining the endless review cycles that the reforms brought about
- Believes the Board should be more honest and amend byelaws rather than ignore them
- He is fundamentally opposed to subsidisation of stakeholder groups
I differ on three of those outtakes, especially the last one. If the existing house arrangement is to remain even minimally viable, what we call the At-Large can only remain functional if it is subsidized.
If you think otherwise, it can only be because you can go along with a fig leaf of effective end-users-as-stakeholder-participants was the real end game for reform.
Carlton
I do agree with Michael that we should not loose sight of the fact that ATRT was a process enshrined into ICANN bylaw(re:ATRT). The issue for me is not a question of whether ATRT should remain or not but how ICANN is attempting to get rid of ATRT. If the process has become such a resource guzzling activity then ICANN should come back to the community to find a fix to it. ATRT 3 still has less than 60% implementation, unless a new ATRT will be looking into a major structural review, allowing more time to implement v3 and introducing a lighter version ATRT may be a good way forward but that discussion needs to have occurred within the community (and the Board).
Once a force has been able to get a vehicle jump started, it's good to let go, continuing to push the vehicle can be a waste of resources. Previous ATRTs have achieved a lot of the objective of the activity and perhaps a longer periodic trigger for ATRT would be ideal if having a lighter version with much smaller scope is not desirable by the community.
Regards_______________________________________________Thanks for pointing out Milton’s constructive response.
I have responded to his comments to hopefully continue a constructive dialogue.
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------Seun Ojedeji,Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!