NCSG Colleagues,

Amr's questions are the start of a wider process of reasoned dialogue on 
the road to creating structures and processes that will oversee the 
transition of management over these key internet domain name functions. 
This mini-dialogue is just a kick off, to be expanded in the incubator 
of ICANN's Singapore meetings in a week. After that, the structures and 
processes to be nurtured and grow (well or badly) will depend on the 
extent of stakeholder awareness and quality of engagement.  With regard 
to Amr's specific concerns: (1) might ICANN look to assume the role 
without NTIA involvement, and (2) does ICANN have more to do to improve 
accountability and transparency, the first should be taken as a 
non-starter. Any outcome where ICANN simply assumed this role would be 
viewed as a failure, and an incomplete process. With regard to 
accountability and transparency, both ICANN and the rest of the Internet 
ecosystem have work to be done. This is the prime area for concern and 
work. How stakeholders get an ongoing voice is crucial here. 2.5 billion 
internet users, twice that number with mobile (cell) access, and 400+ 
billion IP addresses will not, and cannot, simply join existing 
stakeholder governance structures, forums and processes to "have their 
voices heard". Engagement will call for innovations in how stakeholder 
constituencies coalesce across concerns, and within jurisdictions. My 
view is that a  successful global model of multistakeholder governance 
cannot exist in the absence of a layered approach to multistakeholder 
involvement, and this requires leadership by all the lead actors and 
agents within the Internet ecosystem. As well, any Internet ecosystem 
"big fish" that sees this simple as an opportunity for strategic 
repositioning will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Sam Lanfranco