As a followup to my critique of a recent CircleID "defense" of multistakeholderism on the NARALO mailing list, I want to offer up some brief constructive commentary on what is generally regarded as Internet Governance: In a recent conversation with a well-known ICANNer, I was asked: if I could replace the current management of the Internet with some other model, what would it be? Complaining is easy, but does a superior alternative exist? My answer didn't take too long: something largely similar to the model that governs the world's air travel. The United Nations treaty agency ICAO and the airline industry IATA have their headquarters within a four-minute walk in downtown Montréal. They are highly interdependent -- maybe even symbiotic -- but have very specific roles that are generally not duplicated. They have public advisory bodies, regional bureaus and expert groups that propose standards and regulations. In other words, this infrastructure has been multistakeholder since the 1940s, long before the tech world thought it had invented the concept. And, generally speaking, that infrastructure has been proven to work, even between warring countries. Airlines under intense international sanctions remain members <https://www.iata.org/en/about/members/airline-list/s7-airlines/338/>. Safety and stability are the prime objectives of both, though IATA of course cares more about commercial sustainability while ICAO cares about interoperability and environmental sustainability. Having two separate complementary bodies offers plenty of advantages because they keep each other in check; as a result we have neither full government capture nor full commercial capture. The public interest is promoted through both bodies, especially if one is more concerned about results (ie, a global airline industry that is safe, reliable, adaptable and sustainable) than process (ie, splitting hairs about representation). I believe that this model is adaptable to Internet governance and that it would work better than what we think we have now. I also believe it is still possible. What needs to change is a) the arrogance of asserting the Internet is the first instance of multistakeholder governance, b) the misbelief that ICANN is a public-serving example of it, and c) the visceral hostility to anything multilateral, even as a partial component. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56