On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Edward Morris <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

What I don't understand is why civil society and noncommercial interests
> should have any desire to participate in a process by which all authority
> vests in the staff and the CEO and where our interests are considered only
> when the ICANN elites deem it prudent or find it in their own interest to
> do so. If that's the new model going forward then I wholeheartedly agree
> with Robin when she writes "unless the community can reign in this
> power-grabbing staff, we should all just walk away from ICANN as an
> experiment in multi-stakeholder Internet governance that has sadly ended".
> If this bottom up MSM continues to break down I'm not sure the interests of
> those who we represent would not be better served in a government centric
> internet than in a ICANN staff driven process that marginalizes our input
> and interests.
>

While many do-gooders around the world for years have had very many
sleepless nights really volunteering under the ICANN arrangement, costing
them money, precious time and other own resources and rewarded in this
manner, I have often wondered how an ICANN interests chart, if drawn, would
look like? I mean, suppose the organisation collapsed today, what would
they lose? What then would be the self-preservation moves at play?