I hope I am wrong here but, given what I know (as an economist) about 
how the Davos Economic Form views the world, there are multiple reasons 
for being concerned here.

Their view of multistakeholderism is quite different than the one held 
by the civil and not-for-profit constituencies in ICANN. It tends toward 
a model where policy is made from on high bo select stakeholders, and 
other stakeholders are engaged and encouraged to "play their roles" in 
the implementation of policy.

For an example, one can look at the way in which the Millennium 
Development Goals were translated into implementation, or 
non-implementation, and the roles played, or not played, by various 
stakeholder constituencies (including the intended beneficiaries).

As for ICANN involvement here qua ICANN, that may be based as much on 
the downside risks to ICANN of not being there as on the upside benefits 
of being part of these "consultations with Founding Partners and 
potential Transitional Steering Committee Members" [quote from link 
below]....*to do what, with whom and how*?

Transparency and accountability are two words that quickly come to mind 
with regard to this process.

Sam L.

On 21/08/2014 11:33 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> An update is available.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance