Sam you don’t sound one key to me.  But your comment does point to one small matter…many of the folks have insisted that 

a] ICANN stick to a narrow construction of its mandate and role and that a big chunk of what governments and other stakeholders around the world care about is hence to be dealt with ‘somewhere else;’  
b] every effort to create a new multistakeholder processes that could maybe grow to help be that somewhere else has been undesirable on some grounds or another; 
c] every effort to create a new intergovernmental processes that could maybe grow to help be that somewhere else has been undesirable on some grounds or another.

Which leaves us back with the same discussions from 2330-2005 replaying over and over and many G77 governments unhappy and China and the ITU and others working to fill perceive voids etc.  Some believe that industrialized country governments and business can just keep saying nothing is needed other than extant international/transnational arrangements and national policies, but to other ears this just sounds like a control game.  We’ll see how long this status quo can be maintained.

Bill
 

On Jun 6, 2016, at 14:39, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I may sound like a piano with one key in re-making the following (possibly unpopular) observation:

The Internet ecosystem has matured over the past 15 years and more and more stakeholders, including nation states, have acquired a deeper realization of what their stakes are in the boarder Internet ecosystem. Much of that territory is outside ICANN's remit and presents them with governance issues. There is no doubt that a sort of Internet ecosystem "enclosure movement" is coming, with elements national and multilateral ecosystem governance on the horizon. Within this there is a confusion around what is, and what is not, within ICANN's DNS remit. So long as stakeholders outside ICANN do not understand the scope and limits of ICANN's remit there will be confusion on the part of nation states and other stakeholder constituencies as they operate in their individual interest and the public interest. This increases the risks of working at cross purposes where there should be collaboration. Are there any lessons in this confusion? I think so.

  • As ICANN stakeholders work hard and in earnest on issues within ICANN's remit, more attention must be paid to helping others understand the limits of ICANN's remit, and not just to understand better what ICANN does within its remit.
  • We have to help stakeholders within ICANN and within the wider Internet ecosystem (including ICANN) that it is important to help shape and participate in those governance processes that reside beyond ICANN's remit.  
Sam L.

On 6/6/2016 5:07 AM, William Drake wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite" class="">
On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
My understanding is that UNDESA has no bad intentions or does not plan a "conspiracy" against the IGF. They are just doing their "business as usual". And they have not yet understood that the 21st century is different from the 20th century. They have not yet understood that the multistakeholder model is not based on the principle of national sovereignty of UN member states but on principles like openess, transparency, equal Access for all governmental and non-governmental stakeholderrs, bottom up policy development, rough consenus and running code. 

I want to believe this interpretation and wish there were visible data points supporting it.

Bill



*************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
*************************************************************