Throwing up your hands and walking away was indicated many years ago, and yet…

Multi-stakeholderism cannot cope with speed. This is kind of an issue when you’re dealing with the internet. 

This particular effort at multi-stakeholder decision-making was born out of its opposite, when Ira Magaziner and the Clinton administration decided to get rid of the actual multistakeholder effort that existed and replaced it with ICANN. There was no consultation with the stakeholders; we were barely informed. This was a bad start, but also the blueprint for ICANN, which still doesn’t pay any attention to its non-state, non-commercial stakeholders unless the stakes are especially low. It also pays no attention to the commercial or state actors unless they are large. 

However, as a method for sidelining revolutionaries and oddballs, as well as those who enjoy a collegial conversation about things into which they have little insight and less control, multistakeholderism has proven remarkably effective. 

I do not include technical bodies, which are panels of people with real expertise who have to implement and live with the large-scale decisions they make. Note, for instance, that non-technical people are not invited to participate in their decisions, even though they have a stake in them. The technical bodies do not work on a multistakeholder principle, they work on a multi-expertise principle. 

On Dec 11, 2024, at 09:42, Bill Jouris via NA-Discuss <na-discuss@icann.org> wrote:


Hi Evan, 

It might be helpful if you would unpack what you see "governance" meaning in the context of the Internet.  

To your other points, I submit that we have technical bodies which are not only well-meaning but effective.  They don't have 100% control over the technical aspects of the Internet, but they do establish technical standards which are routinely adopted by most vendors of products for the Internet. 

As for the multistakeholder model itself, I think it is worth considering whether the trend towards being a trade association is due to inherent flaws in the model, or due to flaws in the implementation of the model.  If the later (which I personally find more persuasive), we can address what changes are needed there.  Of course, if it's the former, we can just throw up our hands and go home. 

Bill Jouris   



On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 8:38 AM, Evan Leibovitch via NA-Discuss
<na-discuss@icann.org> wrote:
------
NA-Discuss mailing list -- na-discuss@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to na-discuss-leave@icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.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.
------
NA-Discuss mailing list -- na-discuss@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to na-discuss-leave@icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.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.