Hi Sam

I would like to add a third task: To help stakeholders outside the ICANN (and inner IGF) community to understand the lessons learned from ICANN (multistakeholder) procedures. Or as Fadi has seid in the Economisdt: We need a lot of small ICANN like mechanisms for the many different Internet issues outside the ICANN world. 

w



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Sam Lanfranco
Gesendet: Mo 06.06.2016 14:39
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Update: CSCG & IGF Planning Retreat
 
I may sound like a piano with one key in re-making the following 
(possibly unpopular) observation:

The Internet ecosystem has matured over the past 15 years and more and 
more stakeholders, including nation states, have acquired a deeper 
realization of what their stakes are in the boarder Internet ecosystem. 
Much of that territory is outside ICANN's remit and presents them with 
governance issues. There is no doubt that a sort of Internet ecosystem 
"enclosure movement" is coming, with elements national and multilateral 
ecosystem governance on the horizon. Within this there is a confusion 
around what is, and what is not, within ICANN's DNS remit. So long as 
stakeholders outside ICANN do not understand the scope and limits of 
ICANN's remit there will be confusion on the part of nation states and 
other stakeholder constituencies as they operate in their individual 
interest and the public interest. This increases the risks of working at 
cross purposes where there should be collaboration. Are there any 
lessons in this confusion? I think so.

  * As ICANN stakeholders work hard and in earnest on issues within
    ICANN's remit, more attention must be paid to helping others
    understand the limits of ICANN's remit, and not just to understand
    better what ICANN does within its remit.
  * We have to help stakeholders within ICANN and within the wider
    Internet ecosystem (including ICANN) that it is important to help
    shape and participate in those governance processes that reside
    beyond ICANN's remit.

Sam L.

On 6/6/2016 5:07 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang 
>> <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that UNDESA has no bad intentions or does not 
>> plan a "conspiracy" against the IGF. They are just doing their 
>> "business as usual". And they have not yet understood that the 21st 
>> century is different from the 20th century. They have not yet 
>> understood that the multistakeholder model is not based on the 
>> principle of national sovereignty of UN member states but on 
>> principles like openess, transparency, equal Access for all 
>> governmental and non-governmental stakeholderrs, bottom up policy 
>> development, rough consenus and running code.
>
> I /want/ to believe this interpretation and wish there were visible 
> data points supporting it.
>
> Bill