[NCUC-DISCUSS] Scope creep and renegade was Re: NCUC Statement on PRISM?

[Dan Krimm]

The only way I can make sense of Fadi's actions here (granted I'm not
expert on all the details because I haven't had time to absorb it all) is
sort of in the guise of "foreign affairs" and "treaties" if one were to
compare ICANN to a national government institution.

I see your point that general IG is going to affect ICANN, sure that makes
sense.  But I don't see ICANN as the *forum* where that is going to happen.
More like: ICANN would do well to be represented in that forum as such.

In any case, this stuff is not likely to emerge *out of* ICANN in any
significant institutional manner, so far as I can see (and I wouldn't want
it to, given ICANN's continuing dirty laundry).

I support these discussions at IGF, etc.  That seems an appropriate
institutional venue to have them.  And let NCUC members be robustly present
in force, by all means.  And I have no doubt the rest of ICANN's community
will be there to the extent they care and allocate the resources.

I just would not feel good about the prospect of *building* World/IG *out
of* ICANN as an institutional platform.  Not good at all.  Pretty jittery,
in fact.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 1:37 PM +0800 10/28/13, William Drake wrote:
>+1  I recognize how the optics might look to folks who feel adamant about
>ICANN staying within its bounded mandate, but the stuff going on in the
>larger IG environment affects ICANN's ability to continue to work that
>mandate, and will do so much more in the future.  With all the other I*
>orgs getting on board efforts to try to build a coalition to sustain
>multistakeholderism in the face of multilateralism, I can't really see how
>Fadi and ICANN could just wash their hands of it and say sorry, you'll
>have to do the lifting without us, particularly when one of the biggest
>battles is precisely about "us."
>
>Bill
>
>
>On Oct 28, 2013, at 12:59 PM, avri doria
><<mailto:avri at ella.com>avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>In terms of legitimacy, isn't one of the topics that needs to be explored
>>internationalisation of ICANN, and IANA? Isn't that a topic at the top of
>>the list? That seems to be in scope.
>>
>>And the ICANN Board seems to be on-board as Fadi was meeting with a
>>subset of them (including the Chair) and AC/SO leadership every morning.
>>I wasn't in the meetings, and don't know who the rep from gnso was since
>>Jonathan wasn't there, so don't know what the level of buy in was, but I
>>heard no complaints on the ground.
>>
>>So whatever we might say about scope creep Fadi is not being renegade.
>>
>>As for scope creep Fadi and the leaders of the other I* seem to be acting
>>in coordinated faction, so it is within their scope, and would seem to be
>>in scope for any one of them to act on I*'s behalf in organizational
>> talks with governments on a meeting planning.
>>
>>So, in this case at least, I see no fundamental problem of overreach by
>>Fadi.  And, whether he fully understand what it means, he seems to be
>>carrying the banner of multistakeholderism into these discussions.
>>
>>So, at least this once, I am not ready to join in Fadi-attack.
>>
>>
>>avri
>>
>>Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss