Bill,

The core issue for me is "Who is minding the kitchen at home?". I have worked for years (decades) in other areas where the stakeholders try to deal with domestic/national issues by only engaging in struggles on the global stage. That is a very limited strategy, and even more so here.  Internet Citizenship will require vigilance and active participation "at home". Unless one engages in those governance struggles at home, there will be limited success with governance issues in multilateral organizations, and even less at home. It may feel good to speak on a global stage, but if one's own government is not listening it is of limited impact.

The Internet governance table needs three multistakeholder engagement legs: 1. within ICANN; 2. within the multilateral venues; 3. within the national venues. With (or without) the IANA Transition the ICANN remit will be more clearly delineated by internal and external forces. There will be a smaller and more compact ICANN. What happens at multilateral venues depends on what is happening at national levels. Except in the case of very repressive regimes, there need to be struggles around the creation of new/better multistakeholder Internet governance processes within countries. Without that there will be little progress at the multilateral level.

As for the claim of "undesirable on some grounds or another", in part that reflects: (a)  special interest concerns about the balance of power, but it also reflects: (b) ambiguity about the relationship between multistakeholder representation and democratic processes. The first is mainly a power struggle but the second is a serious issue that requires deeper exploration beyond what ever policy issues are at hand.

Sam L.

On 6/6/2016 9:19 AM, William Drake wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 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
*************************************************************



-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
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
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852