Thanks for doing all of this, Robin.

- A further response from NMI Secretariat. In it they state that we can 
evaluate all Coordination Council applicants and make recommendations to the 
Transitional Council, and it seems our recommendations will be accepted 
unless someone else purports to be representative of civil society and they 
accept that – in which case, we get to discuss with them alternative 
assessments to ours.  So they do retain some decisional authority but it 
might not be exercised or be enough to matter to some people

During the quarterly call today, Fadi indicated that talks were ongoing with 
ISOC and he expected a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations. Although 
still begrudgingly in favour of participation, would it not make sense to 
attempt to quash this top down approval process through negotiation as a 
pre-condition to our participation? Or is that pie in the sky thinking? 


- There is also the issue of ICANN expanding its purely technical mandate 
into non-technical policy matters, and grasping for more solid footing as a 
global governance regime.  Unless ICANN expands its mission beyond domain 
names, what power will it have in the world in 30 years when domain names 
are irrelevant?  And how will the pairing of ICANN and WEF drive those 
policy issues within the initiative?

I have no problem with discussing expansion of ICANN's mandate. Such 
discussion, though, needs to be done in the context of bylaws revisions. It 
could be argued that ICANN's participation in the NMI is appropriate under 
Article 1 (1)3 of the Bylaws concerning reasonable and appropriate policy 
development related to the defined technical functions. I don't personally 
buy that argument, but it's not completely unreasonable. It's the next step 
that worries me.

I'm not Nostradamus but I don't think we'll have to wait 30 years for a 
centralised domain name and addressing system to be considered a relic of an 
earlier time. Block chain  technology is already here and as we learn to 
harness its potential things like a centralised DNS are bound to fall. My 
concern is that ICANN, along with other beneficiaries of the status quo, 
many of whom are represented in the WEF, will try to stop the revolutionary 
changes and improvements block chain may bring to society and in doing so 
will become advocates of dated technology rather than coordinators of the 
existing DNS. Doing our best to hold ICANN to it's existing Bylaws 
limitations along with active participation in entities like the NMI, if we 
can stomach the terms and conditions for entry, is probably our best shot at 
helping to create a structure where technology will truly be free to 
innovate in a way that expands, rather than contracts,  human freedom.

In other words, the long term death and extinction of ICANN isn't something 
that necessarily should be feared but for the right reasons might be the 
cause for celebration!