<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">I would like to follow up Stephanie & Milton's
comments here with a particular perspective. <br>
There are two ways to frame this question and while they may
appear to just be variations of the same question, they are not.
<br>
<br>
The first framing is:<i> Should ICANN extend its internal pdp-wg
focus beyond the stability and security of the DNS? </i><br>
<br>
The second framing is a bit more complications and needs a
Whereas preface:<br>
</font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Whereas global
Internet ecosystem governance policy issues and policy
making are growing rapidly </font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Whereas ICANN,
with its particular remit, is a stakeholder in global
Internet ecosystem governance</font></li>
</ul>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><i>S</i><i>hould
ICANN respond as a stakeholder within the broader
multistakeholder global Internet ecosystem policy
development process?</i></font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">My own assessment of
the situation is that ICANN should answer NO to the first
framing of the question, <br>
but that it should answer YES to the engagement as found in the
second framing of the question. <br>
<br>
The global Internet ecosystem is beginning to struggle with how
it builds the structures and processes for policy making within
the broader global Internet ecosystem. <br>
ICANN is a stakeholder and should participant in that process,
but how ICANN should do that is not an easy question to answer.
<br>
But being not easy does not mean that ICANN should ignore the
challenge. <br>
<br>
ICANN should be a stakeholder participant from the start,
initially helping to build the structures and processes for
policy making within the broader global Internet ecosystem.<br>
For ICANN not to take an active stakeholder role in that wider
process would likely mean that may matters of policy substance
that currently reside within ICANN's remit would<br>
slowly erode away to other global Internet ecosystem policy
forums, and slowly reduce ICANN to a solely technology-centric
policy focus. <br>
The challenge for ICANN is not YES or NO, but YES and HOW?<br>
<br>
To repeat my position. The second question is:</font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><i> S</i><i>hould ICANN
respond as a stakeholder within the broader multistakeholder
global Internet ecosystem policy development process?<br>
<br>
</i>My position is YES and the internal ICANN dialogue should be
around the HOW. <br>
This, of course, goes way being a single question for a meeting
with the Board. <br>
<br>
<br>
Sam Lanfranco <br>
NCSG/NPOC</font> <br>
<br>
<br>
<i> On 10/5/2017 7:49 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:</i><i><br>
</i></div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2b8d1827-7e32-27b3-7157-90b86b858b5b@mail.utoronto.ca"><i>
</i>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<i> </i>
<p><i><font face="Lucida Grande">I second that motion...</font></i></p>
<i> </i>
<p><i><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie</font></i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i><i><br>
</i><i> </i>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><i>On 2017-10-05 17:07, Mueller,
Milton L wrote:</i><i><br>
</i> </div>
<i> </i>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BLUPR0701MB1698F72357FA1EB5B16DF2AAA1700@BLUPR0701MB1698.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"><i>
</i>
<pre wrap=""><i>Could we make this question a more general one about the various pressures for ICANN to expand its mission?
Dr. Milton Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
</i></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>