Regarding multistakeholder evolution/pdp improvements

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree with your assessment Sam, and while I have no wish to denigrate the first two groups....we want a strong, competitive industry in the DNS field, and we want a rigorous, critical academic community that study and publish on Internet governance (thus helping to contribute to its legitimacy and integrity) you are right in my view about the last group.  I think this might be a good topic to raise with the Board, how can we support this group better?

Thanks for the comment.

Stephanie Perrin

NCSG Chair

On 2020-02-16 10:39 a.m., Sam Lanfranco wrote:
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]

      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] 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/20200216/3aedea50/attachment.htm>