FYI: EC appoints 39 experts [one from ICANN] to a new high level group on fake news and online disinformation.

[Sam Lanfranco]

I posted this information as an FYI with the hopes that it would prompt 
an exchange, and I am pleased to see that it has. I said nothing about 
the information but now I would like to share a slightly more nuanced 
view of both the group of 39 “experts” and the presence of an ICANN 
person in the group.

Some historical perspective helps. When ICANN was created the Internet 
ecosystem was a tiny digital space. It was, in some sense, “over there”, 
a place we “visited” on occasion. ICANN was charged with managing the 
stability and security of the DNS system. With growth the Internet 
ecosystem it is no longer “over there”. It is an integral part of our 
daily reality and, as the demand for DNS specific policies grows, and 
the demand for Internet ecosystem policies grows faster.

Thinking of the Internet ecosystem as a pizza, ICANN’s role in Internet 
governance is charged with keeping the dough healthy and the crust well 
defined. The rest of the ecosystem is about what goes on the pizza and 
how the pizza is used. It is rich with governance issues and there is a 
real question about what ICANN’s role should be in that broader Internet 
governance dialogue.

My view is that ICANN. as stakeholder, should (a) participate in wider 
policy discussions, and (b) maintain a high degree of transparency as to 
the role it plays. At a minimum the rest of those involved in global (or 
national) Internet governance policy do not always know the scope and 
limits of the ICANN remit and it is worth ICANN being at the table to 
remind the discussion of what ICANN is not responsible for, and cannot 
not do. I do not think it is a wise idea to support a policy of 
disengagement with other Internet governance forums.

ICANN transparency would also provide the ICANN constituencies with a 
window on both the hot button Internet governance issues that may be of 
relevance to constituencies independent of ICANN’s remit, and signal 
where to look for the state of discussion on those issues. 
Constituencies also of course maintain independent monitoring and 
engagement in Internet governance issues that refer to their own 
constituency remits, In addition to a reporting and transparency 
process, ICANN (the community) might want to develop a mechanism for 
advising those representing ICANN in groups such as the EC group of 39 
Experts, advising within the limits of the ICANN remit.
/
/*/Just stirring the pot with  “food for thought”/*

Sam L.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180113/6dc2ed2f/attachment.htm>