Re: [npoc-voice] Request for Assistance from ICANN

["klaus.stoll" <klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Friends

Greetings. I agree with most what has been said before. I think this is a very 
important development and something that needs to be discussed and “put on the 
table” with ICANN as it goes right into the heart, spirit and center of what 
ICANN is and should be , it is the fight about ICANN soul. ICANN staff, because 
of their background see ICANN as a “MSP Company”. For them company means 
“managed interests” and not open and flexible “dialogue” with uncertain outcome 
between the MSP stakeholders. It’s the old topic of ICANN policy making process 
again and again. How can we have hope for the open MSP model? I think the 
answer is simple: it turns out to be the better “business model”. Managed 
interests achieve, managed, secure and limited results and returns, they are 
safe but dull and not very resistant against real challenges, a MSP dialogue 
business model is chaotic and unpredictable but in the end it produces the 
better return and is also more resilient against attacks. It’s the old faceless 
bureaucrat against creative genius. I know which one is the real soul of ICANN, 
and like all souls they have to be nourished and maintained on a daily basis.

Yours

Klaus 

From: Poncelet Ileleji 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:41 PM
To: Sam Lanfranco 
Cc: Rudi Vansnick ; Eduardo Monge Gutierrez ; npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Request for Assistance from ICANN

Colleagues,

I will like to add,  that ICANN has been evolving and if you look at the 
present trends things are changing for ICANN to have a better global appeal and 
communication outreach  and inclusiveness that aspect is where the 
constituencies come in to support the ICANN administration and my reasoning 
based on what I am seeing is constituencies like ours are now getting more 
relevant to ICANN multistakeholdrism process. 

Personally what I have seen in the couple of months since the last IGF and the 
intercessional is that times are changing, the survey is a start, it might tend 
to look too "Corporate focusing" as Sam suggested but we should look at the 
global picture and the various on goings within ICANN global outreach.

I can say speaking from a developing country perspective especially from small 
"The Gambia" more people are now  knowing now about ICANN role within the 
global internet ecosystem, so something is changing.  It might still be  a bit 
opaque in outlook to some who know better than I the inner workings of ICANN 
but I see a better outreach happening.

Just my small thoughts and contribution.

Peace

Ponvcelet

WE have to understand that 


On 28 February 2013 00:33, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


  Colleagues,

  I tend to agree with Rudi Vansnick's assessment but for some slightly
  different reasons. The questions look like they do reflect some inner
  ICANN thinking. As a result some of the questions are too "corporate",
  forcing answers that probably miss what the respondent really wants to
  say. The absence of a "neutral" response option on the lykert scale
  further constrained responses.

  One problem is that the ICANN administration corporate self image sees
  itself as the producer of a product, facing a stakeholder community
  that it wants to get "on side", and maybe learn something from,
  although that "something" seems mainly to be how to get more
  stakeholders on side.

  More properly, ICANN administration should view itself as just one
  more stakeholder group in the process of pursuing the future health
  and wellness of the Internet. Failure to understand that point causes
  it to poorly understand stakeholder Internet dynamics outside ICANN,
  and  puts the Internet at risk. This has nothing to do with the
  relative positions of ICANN and the ITU.

  It has a lot to do with any number of other multilateral treaties,
  treaty organizations, and national legislation coming down the
  pipeline, driven to deal with aspects of Internet governance that are
  boiling just below the surface, and not dealt with adequately in
  ICANN's multi-stakeholder engagement strategy.

  Sam Lanfranco, York U.

  ----------- Rudi Vansnick's - comments


  > Colleagues,
  >
  > Good ICANN is doing some homework, questioning the grassroots, but
  > unfortunately they took a wrong partner. At least, that's my
  > personal opinion. All over the survey they speak of ICANN company,
  > while ICANN is not at all a company. So, it looks as if the survey
  > is a kind of copy-paste survey from other origins. As such I have
  > to conclude ICANN is spending it's money with less appropriate
  > partners. Furthermore who is selecting these partners ?
  > I'm afraid time has come to query for more open transparent and
  > effective multi-stakeholderism where stakeholders are allowed to
  > partner in all aspects, and as such also the selection of those
  > querying us and the community.
  >
  > If would not have known ICANN (i'm involved since 2005) I would
  > really think I have to do with a commercial structure. What's your
  > opinion in this ?
  >
  > Rudi Vansnick
  >

  ------
  ----------------------------------------------
  "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
  in an unjust state" -Confucius
  ----------------------------------------------
  Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
  Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
  email: Lanfran@xxxxxxxx   Skype: slanfranco
  blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
  Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852




-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org