I can't argue with the fact that ICANN's scope at the moment is narrower and is
supposed to limit it to the technical matter of naming and numbering, but
perhaps there is a role for ICANN to play that could, over time, see it absorb
broader governance capabilities? What I like about the NMI is that it brings
non-state actors into internet governance processes, and lends, at least in
theory, voice to a more balanced representation of concerns and constituencies
than an intergovernmental approach to internet governance would. I appreciate
this is not a universally held view and the evidence for a few of my statements
is lacking. What I do think is good for the wider internet governance ecosystem,
however, is cooperation from academia, civil society, end-users, government, and
industry. It's for that reason that I think it would be unfortunate if ICANN was
to abandon the NMI.
Ayden
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Mueller, Milton L < [log in to unmask] > wrote:




Firstly, it's noted that the ICANN Board will “determine at a later date whether
to continue any funding [towards the NMI] beyond June 30th. Chehade also
announced his resignation from the NMI Coordination Council effective March 13,
2016.” I'm not sure if he resigned in his capacity as departing CEO of ICANN (in
which case Göran Marby will take his seat on the NMI CC) or if ICANN is removing
itself from a leadership role in the initiative? If it is the latter, I find
this unfortunate.



MM: Why? I would welcome ICANN’s withdrawal from this initiative, which is
outside its proper scope and mission.





Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology









Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest