All,

This is a short interjection. I am slowly working on a blog on this 
topic, one that draws on the lessons learned from the International 
Labour Organization (ILO), and lessons that may be of possible use to 
ICANN.

The ILO is a tripartite (Government, Industry, labour) multilateral 
organization created in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles, the 
treaty that ended World War I. In 1946 the ILO became the first 
specialized agency of the UN. The ILO is on the ICANN IGO list 
https://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/pdfZkxNP6hsHB.pdf along with 
the ITU and the Red Cross, but it is quite different from both the ITU 
and the Red Cross.

As a tripartite structure it carries on multistakeholder discussion, 
conducts research, and makes global recommendations around labour 
standards, and then recommendations them to be ratified by countries. 
Ratified International labour standards are backed by an ILO supervisory 
system that is unique at the international level and that helps to 
ensure that countries implement the conventions they ratify. The ILO 
regularly examines the application of standards in member states and 
points out areas where they could be better applied. If there are any 
problems in the application of standards, the ILO seeks to assist 
countries through social dialogue and technical assistance.

It is increasingly the case that ICANN policy as formulated within its 
remit will be impacted on by national and multilateral policy decisions 
and practices that reside within Internet ecosystem but reside outside 
ICANN's policy remit. This challenge is both larger and more pervasive 
than whatever might be perceived as the constraints on ICANN policy and 
implementation because of ICANN's corporate nationality (i.e., where it 
legally resides). In a sentence, going forward the ultimate challenge 
for ICANN goes beyond how good is its DNS policy, how strong is its 
multistakeholder process, and how well it is insulated against 
"capture". All of that is of course crucially important, but it is not 
enough.

Beyond the effective pursue of policy within its remit, policy in 
pursuit of a safe and secure, open, free, and global Internet ecosystem, 
the remaining "elephant in the room" is how does ICANN participate, as a 
stakeholder entity much as the ILO is a stakeholder entity, in shaping 
national and multilateral policy decisions and practices that reside 
within the Internet ecosystem but reside outside ICANN's policy remit. 
This does not mean that ICANN should expand its policy remit, nor is 
this issue resolved by changing ICANN's legal residence. It does mean 
that ICANN is a stakeholder entity, along side those stakeholders and 
stakeholder entities that work with ICANN within its remit, and all are 
stakeholders in wider Internet ecosystem policy and practice.

How this "ICANN as a stakeholder" challenge is translated into action 
should be the focus of serious reflection. Bits and pieces exist as seen 
in various IGF efforts, and in the original NetMundial. The risks of 
inadequate reflection are seen in the stumbling initiatives around the 
World Economic Forum (WEF) and a new NetMundial Initiative, and -I might 
add- around how to deal with ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee 
(GAC) and the multilateral International Telecommunications Union (ITU). 
One possible lesson learned from the almost 100 years of the ILO is that 
ICANN, as a self-interested stakeholder, should participate in that 
wider multistakeholder discussion, assist with research, and play a role 
in global recommendations around Internet ecosystem policy norms 
(standards) that will be considered and ratified within countries and 
within multilateral agreements. I do not, of course, expect broad 
agreement to these ideas but I do hope that they help focus some of the 
discussion around ICANN and the challenges of the wider Internet ecosystem.

Sam Lanfranco, NPOC & Canadian Society for International Health (CSIH)