My brother Carlos:
I see a very thoughtful response and to my mind, your views are entirely supportable.
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 and most who know me will likely see the other two very quickly. 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
---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
De: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com>
Fecha: 18 jun 2025 18:42
Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] The DNS Is Broken - Response
Para: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Cc:Hi bro, some thoughts :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 AguirreEl 18 jun 2025 17:59, Carlton Samuels via lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@icann.org> escribió:Y'all might have already seen on one or other of these lists the article authored by Michael Palage and now published in CirceID.The response from one of my favourite polemicists, Milton Mueller, is as interesting.Carlton==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
_______________________________________________
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.