[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
steve at shinkuro.com
Tue Feb 25 22:48:42 UTC 2014
Even when you speak darkly you brighten my day :)
Let me speak simply and directly on some topics that seem to recur. One topic is 1net and the Brazil meeting. Another is about direction and governance of ICANN. Many of us, including me, know these are quite separate topics, but both seem to be coming up repeatedly.
With respect to 1net and the Brazil meeting, the motivation for these is to develop additional mechanisms and forums for dealing with the broad range of topics that fall generally under the rubric of Internet governance. The primary focus is not -- or, at least, should not be -- about ICANN, though I can well imagine there will be at least some focus on ICANN. Brazil is hosting the meeting in Sao Paulo, along with several other governments, and ICANN is merely a participant. Fadi and his team have been very helpful in the process, and they have done with the full support of the ICANN Board, but this is a form of public service that comes along with our main mission; it is not our main mission and we are not seeking to expand our purview.
Meanwhile, with respect to the roles of the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Board and the staff in the decision process within ICANN, we remain committed to the multi-stakeholder model with emphasis on a bottom up process and open participation from all. The staff's role is to implement and execute. This is a large task. It requires a lot of resources, and, necessarily some judgment along the way, but the staff does not try to control the direction. The Board also sees itself as having a limited role. We have a legal obligation to oversee the finances and properly operation of the corporation and to make sure the rules are being followed. We are keenly aware that the bylaws appear to put us in the position of making the primary decisions regarding policy, but we know the real directions are set by the community. The Board watches to see processes are followed and that problems get solved, but we try to avoid doing the work ourselves.
Some -- perhaps most -- of what makes various people uncomfortable is coming from the scaling up of ICANN's activities. When we all decided to move forward with new gTLDs, with IDNs, with DNSSEC, with outreach to each of the regions, and with many other initiatives, it was inevitable that the organization would grow and change. We also chose, in response to the changing political environment, to engage in the larger dialog about Internet governance as a whole.
The ICANN you contributed to -- and we all owe you many thanks for your tireless efforts and many good things that have come from your efforts -- has grown, matured and become far more capable of dealing with the wide range of business, technical, policy and political issues in front of it than it used to be.
ICANN is not yet done evolving. I don't know precisely what it will look like in the future, but I am pretty sure there will be changes. Some of these changes will be small, subtle changes; others may be more visible and seem dramatic. However, all of these changes will be motivated by the same enduring principles that ICANN's mission is to coordinate the unique identifiers for the Internet and ensure their security and stability, that ICANN must also foster competition and innovation, that ICANN must be transparent and accountable, and that ICANN has to be effective, efficient and empathic with the community it serves.
On Feb 25, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I will say [darkly] that that is not the ICANN I helped to contribute to, and it is not the ICANN that I support, but it seems to be the ICANN that the Board is enabling.
> Too many staff -- new-- don't even actually know what ICANN does, how it does it, or why.
> I think a 'hit pause' button is needed.
> Sent from my iPad
>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 7:20 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> On 24-Feb-14 23:41, Mike Roberts wrote:
>>>> From a legal perspective, which may or may not be valued by those
>>>> on this list, only an approved Board resolution represents the
>>>> position of the organization
>> From a legal perspective yes. And if ICANN is just another money making corporation, that is indeed the way it should be and it should only be the CEO and properly trained corporate mouthpeices speaking for it.
>> But from the multistakeholder PoV we keep selling ourselves, that is not the way it should be, and not the fantasy most of us keep laboring under.
>> Unfortunately ICANN is more the standard corporation with a CEO who has his own vision, with a Board that approves, instead of the multistakeholder organization where that vision directs their actions. That is, it may not be the organzation most of those volunteering in it think it is.
>> So yeah, if it is not a multistakeholder organization led from the bottom-up, legally is all that counts.
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss