Private Comments on new Bylaws

[Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bylaws. In general I 
want to state that the new Bylaws are to a large extend represent the 
outcomes of the ICG and CCWG-Accountability and the drafters should be 
commented for this.
Please allow me to make some more general and personal comments that 
address issues that are common to nearly all sections of the Bylaws. I 
apologize in advance for mentioning these topics again and again, but 
the consistent failure of the ICANN community to address these important 
issues make it necessary until they are adequately addressed.
Yours

Klaus Stoll

Section 1.2.COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES , (iv) + (iv)

/Employ open, transparent and bottom up, multistakeholder policy 
development processes that are led by the private sector (including 
business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, academia, 
and end users), while duly taking into account the public policy advice 
of governments and public authorities./
I note that the “academia” is mentioned in both sections is the only 
stakeholder group mentioned that does not have its own stakeholder group 
for representation. Do the Bylaws indicate a need for specific 
representation by academia?.
I note that the by-laws donot mention or address awareness and capacity 
building and does not address the danger of a captured community through 
under and miss-representation by specific interest in stakeholder groups 
as the vast majority of Internet ecosystem citizens are not present as 
engaged stakeholders.
For ICANN, the organization operating the DNS, the multistakeholder 
model of governance is central to the stability and security of the 
global Internet. For ICANN’s governance to be robust and defensible, it 
needs broad and deep stakeholder engagement within its "/open, 
transparent and bottom up, multistakeholder policy development 
processes/" of Internet governance.
Given the financial Interests of ICANN contracted parties stakeholders 
and non-contracted business interests, it comes as no surprise that they 
are heavily and deeply represented as stakeholders in ICANN’s policy 
making and governance processes. It also comes as no surprise that the 
vast majority of Internet ecosystem citizens, the Internet users, are 
not present as engaged stakeholders within the ICANN community. Most 
individual citizens and groups are focused on how they may use the 
Internet as a tool, but they do not focus on the Internet and its 
governance per se unless Internet policy impacts them directly. ICANN is 
in a situation where it professes participation by citizens in a 
multistakeholder model of engagement, but where 99% (literally all) of 
those “citizens” don’t even know that this governance process 
exists.This creates the danger of capturing of stakeholder groups 
through under- and miss- representation and ultimately can undermine the 
spirit and intend of the Bylaws.
If ICANN cannot find practical ways to enable wider and deeper 
participation in ICANN, this will threaten the very legitimacy of 
ICANN’s multistakeholder governance model. The main dangers are under 
and miss-representation. Under-representation, where stakeholder groups 
interests are not factored into governance and policy making at all 
levels and a disproportionate weight is exercised by those with a voice 
and who have direct pecuniary interests. Gross under representation of 
stakeholders leaves ICANN’s governance and policy processes open to 
criticism that it is an inadequate multistakeholder process.
Miss-representation, where a thin representation of the large majority 
give disproportionate weight to the voice and positions of the few such 
stakeholders who claim to represent the vast number of unaware and 
unengaged citizens of the Internet ecosystem.
The by-laws should put a more strict emphasis on “/transparent and 
bottom up, multistakeholder policy development processes” also /within 
the ICANN stakeholder groups. Awareness and capacity building of all 
Internet end users, not just their mere representation through 
self-elected representatives, are the only way to ensure “/transparent 
and bottom up, multistakeholder policy development processes” /and 
avoids the danger of capture.
I am aware that this and other important topics like the role of ICANN 
staff, are envisaged to be addressed in Workstream 2, but it would have 
been helpful ifthe Bylaws would have laid a more solid foundation for 
the forthcoming discussions in Workstream 2, by putting more emphasis on 
the need for Awareness and Capacity building, and “/transparent and 
bottom up, multistakeholder policy development processes” /within the 
stakeholder groups.
Klaus Stoll