[discuss] Current drive

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Michael:

Does this mean that if ICANN expands it's area of interest/activity into broader fields of Internet and Internet associated policy and governance (as seems to be the current drive) you would support the application of the MS model simply because it is currently working in certain areas of ICANN's activity, irrespective of the particular policy area to which it might be applied.

Wolfgang:
I do not see this "current drive" and there is no "mission creep". What I see is that ICANN concentrates more than ever on its core business (DNS) and is trying to further improve its performence and excellence (ATRT, new gTLD, whois, security, stability and resilience). 
 
At the same time, ICANN has recognized that it does not live isloated but is part of a broader Internet Governance Ecosystem. If ICANN want to continue to manage its core business correctly, it has also to invest into an envorinment which allows to do this. What ICANN offers into this broader debate is its (good and bad) experiences, best practices and "lessons learned". Some ICANN "inventions", like the bottom up open, transparent and inclusive PDP (in particular in the GNSO), could become a source on inspiration  for the governance of other Internet (public policy) issues, excuted by somebody else, not by ICANN. 
 
Good to see that after Singapore governments in the GAC obvioulsy value the option of an early engagement.  This will strengthen the multistakeholder model, which is still in its infant stage. 
 
w