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