All,

I strongly agree that opening a direct discussion with the board in
Singapore with a focus on the intent of their "advisory groups" process is
imperative. This will be an opening step since resolution of the issues
will go far beyond Singapore and what ICANN intends to do with the results
from the advisory groups. At the core of this is what exactly does ICANN
mean when it refers to itself as a multistakeholder organization, and how
-in practice- does it handle policy and implementation in ways accountable
to (which) stakeholders? In addition, this raises a question for those of
us fortunate enough to be in attendance. In our actions how are we both
representing, and accountable to, our own stakeholder constituencies? 

On a personal level I have tracked, and commented on
(http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com), the Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder
Innovation. The Panel document is presented as a "Blueprint" but is in fact
a mixed basket of tried, untried, maybe appropriate, and clearly
inappropriate ideas for stakeholder involvement, but no clear path to
greater ICANN accountability to a multistakeholder governance model. 

At stake here are both ICANN's multistakeholder model of governance, and
ICANN's future position in broader Internet governance. If the stakeholder
voice is muted within ICANN, it will seek standing elsewhere. 

Sam Lanfranco 
----------------------------------------------
 "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
 in an unjust state" -Confucius
 ----------------------------------------------
 Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
 Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
 email: [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])   Skype: slanfranco
 blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com (http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com)