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, 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]   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com