Regarding multistakeholder evolution/pdp improvements

[Sam Lanfranco]

	Regarding multistakeholder evolution/pdp improvements:
	The ICANN fiscal plan documents for 2021-2025 make repeated reference to
improving ICANN’s multistakeholder mechanisms. They stress the need for
improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. I would like to add that
ICANN needs to improve its multistakeholder mechanisms for two additional
purposes, for the purposes of integrity and legitimacy.  

	ICANN likes to stress that:  

	ICANN community policy work takes place through an open, consultative
process where policies are developed and refined by the Supporting
Organizations with input from its Advisory Committees –all composed of
volunteers from across the world.[1] (#_ftn1) 

	      This under recognizes that there are three distinct groups within
and across the "volunteers from across the world".  
	* The most entitled group are those for whom their ICANN work is seen as
part of the work associated with their job. Their job pays for their time
and their expenses as ICANN volunteers. 
	* The middle group are those for whom engagement with ICANN contributes to
career capital (e.g. some academics, some lawyers, etc). By dint of their
engagement some obtain limited entitlements in the form participation
support for ICANN meetings, either from ICANN directly or from sources
related to their professional careers. 
	*  The third group, and the one that ICANN needs to grow for the
legitimacy of its multistakeholder model, includes those who contribute pro
bono and in the public interest. Engagement is not as part of their job,
they gain little career capital from that pro bono engagement, and they are
unlikely to have participation support from their jobs. In terms of access
they are the most marginalized, and face the greatest obstacles to
participation. 
	There are various options to promote a more effective and efficient
multistakeholder process in terms of how PDPs and WG operate. The
challenges to greater "third group" participation, necessary for the
integrity and legitimacy of ICANN’s multistakeholder mechanisms, are more
complicated.  

	However, what should be clear and vital is that any search for strategies
for greater engagement and for appropriate engagement mechanisms requires
early and continued engagement by, and global outreach to, that "third
group" (some of whom are within the NCSG) since that is where the major
challenges reside. 
	Sam Lanfranco 
P.S., there may always be a dark option lurking in the shadows. That option
involves ICANN reducing the scope of how it understands its mandate. As the
scope of global Internet governance grows, there will always be a risk of
someone trying to push that dark option. It is probably not too much to say
that Vigilance is the Eternal Cost of Engagement here. 
------------------------------------
	[1] (#_ftnref1)
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-operating-initiatives-fy2021-2025-14jun19-en.pdf
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-operating-initiatives-fy2021-2025-14jun19-en.pdf),
p. 15   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200216/29d6914a/attachment.htm>