+1 Sam

--ff--
Best regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farell FOLLY

Africa 2.0 Benin

Chapter Head - Technology Champion

t: +22997 248100
s : Skype: farellf
m: [log in to unmask]

w :www.africa2point0.org
l : www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
tt : www.twitter.com/__f_f__

De : NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Sam Lanfranco
Envoyé : lundi 6 juin 2016 13:39
À : [log in to unmask]
Objet : Re: Update: CSCG & IGF Planning Retreat

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:

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