Hi,


From my understanding, and i arrived late to the party, it was always
intended to be non profit.  But that was just a fact of being an non
profit corporation. I do not know when they got their IRS tax status.

As for multistakeholder, that is evolution in the terminology we use to
describe organizations.  At its founding multistakeholder models were
not as much in use and the identity was not used.  The methods had
evolved in places like IETF. ICANN borrowed a bit of those methods at
its start.  It was not until the WSIS time frame that the term started
creeping into the organizational self identity.  And we still see some
in the organization who make strong claim to the private sector control
aspect of ICANN, though we have begun to qualify that 'private sector'
includes all non governmental.  Finally when one looks at the
proportions of Business to Non Commercial in the GNSO SGs (3:1) one can
see that the private sector defined as business still dominates the
organization. The transition and accountability processes are
multistakeholder, but it is still aspirational with regard to ICANN itself.

Would be an interesting bit of academics to see a map of the identity
flow based on authoritative utterances.  Perhaps even mapped against
group proportionalities in the community.

avri



On 22-Sep-16 09:38, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> This is a question for one of us with a longer history with ICANN than
> I have.
>
> I have noticed that the language used to discuss the history leading
> up to the transition of IANA oversight the wording does not
> refer to ICANN as a not-for-profit multistakeholder organization but
> instead uses variations on the term "private and international".
> Most recently this appears in Wolfgang's piece in circleid.com where
> he writes:
>
>       "...the privatization and internationalization of the management
> of Internet core resources."
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160921_breaking_nonsense_ted_cruz_iana_transition_and_irony_of_life/
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160921_breaking_nonsense_ted_cruz_iana_transition_and_irony_of_life/>
>
> I assume there is some history to using the words "private" and
> "international" rather than "not-for-profit" and "multistakeholder".
> Can someone shed some light on this?
>
> Sam L.
>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus