I agree with those who are saying that independent of one’s position on a .org price cap removal and its likely consequences, the bigger issue here is the complete and utter failure of ICANN as a multistakeholder organization. To say that civil society and civil society organizations (CSOs) including those represented within NCSG and ALAC were both ignore and marginalized is to put it mildly. 

It is interesting that this is happening at a time when the rest of the world is looking more seriously at CSO engagement and collaboration in multistakeholder decision making and policy implementation. The recent OECD paper:  ENABLING CIVIL SOCIETY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: SELECT SURVEY FINDINGS, by Jacqueline Wood and Karin Fällman opens with the following statement:

"Civil  society  and  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs)  are  important  to  development  co-operation,  both  as  implementing  partners  for  members  of  the  Development  Assistance  Committee (DAC), and as development actors in their own right. Agenda 2030 is clear on the  necessity  of  mobilising  CSOs  to  implement,  and  uphold  accountability  for,  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals."

  https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/enabling-civil-society_54903a6a-en

The following are my personal views. For some time now ICANN has been engaged in a progressive marginalization of the non-commercial (CSO) multistakeholder community. At the same time ICANN needs to protect its public image as a not-for-profit multistakeholder organization, so it preserves the appearance of consultation and points to the existence of NCSG (and ALAC). As in the case of the .org price (un)cap it consults, but neither listens nor engages in dialogue. It is as though “consultation” is just to check off a “Done That” box in a To Do List, and not to arrive at a better consensus outcome. 

I have not documented the following view, but I suspect that it is true. ICANN, measured by its annual operating budget, is probably the largest not-for-profit multistakeholder organization in the world. At the same time, in its three-legged stakeholder stool (business, government, civil society) civil society is both the slimmest leg and the most ignored constituency. 

What is to be done about this situation?

Probably the least promising approach is to open dialogue with the ICANN Board.  Such dialogues take place in very ritualized settings and ICANN is likely to focus on specifics (e.g. the .org uncap) and evade  the issues around marginalization and not taking consultation seriously. Dialogue with the staff would be a non-starter, for several reasons.

Reflecting on how such marginalization has been approached elsewhere I suspect that the only promising path forward is for civil society organizations and interests to pay greater attention to how the are constituted, as stakeholders, in the other processes dealing with the wider issues of global internet governance and policies, processes where ICANN is just another stakeholder and not the final arbiter of policy. 

I have no illusions about a change of focus being a challenging proposal. While civil society, NCSG, ALAC, et. al. have invested considerable volunteer time and effort as stakeholders in ICANN’s mission, the fact that ICANN funds ICANN conference participation has been an attractive carrot. Mobilizing independently, or as a sister structure to NCSG, raises the issue of funding, and fund raising. Some groups have already addressed that in terms of IGF and WSIS participation. 

This still leaves on the table the issue of what NCSG should (and can) do about growing marginalization and its relegation to a symbolic role in ICANN’s multistakeholder image. I leave that to others to discuss and hope for a healthy dialogue around that challenge. 

Sam L. (NPOC)