[governance] [igf_members] MAG Renewal

[David Cake]

On 15/05/2013, at 4:26 PM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> On 16/05/2013 6:46 a.m., Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <5193BAD9.1010109 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 04:42:01 on Thu, 16
>> May 2013, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz> writes
>>> ICANN processes would be more functional if ICANN used an issues based
>>> approach rather than the current constituency based approach to its
>>> meetings and its work.
>> 
>> Perhaps an inevitable consequence of being "multi-stakeholder" and hence
>> having meetings specifically for each stakeholder group.
> 
> ICANN was originally established on a constituency basis, the dNSO, GAC, At Large etc, and has persisted with this model. Now that ICANN has matured significantly (but potentially nothing more than an acne laden adolescent), the constituency model is really only of use in the methodology to select / recruit / appoint that constituency's representative(s) to the ICANN Board.
> 
> So perhaps the idea of coming into an ICANN meeting for day 1 and leaving on day 5 from *your* constituency, you could spend days 2 - 4 in multistakeholder rooms discussing issues with all affected parties, rather than purely with your peers - this would help all participants appreciate the colour and depth of opinion on issues, and therefore lead to more inclusive, transparent and consensus based decisions?

	My experience of ICANN is that I spend roughly 1 day of each meeting (Tuesday, 'constituency day') focussed on my constituency, and the rest of the time in more multistakeholder rooms. And that problems remain. 
	The problem is not really about constituencies per se, or even constituencies in the ICANN specific use of term - but rather siloisation into separate processes. Several of the ICANN silos are multistakeholder, but still silos (I spend most of my time within the GNSO, which is certainly multi-stakeholder, but not all stakeholders, and not all issues) - and much of the problem in dealing with government is that government is largely corralled into its own separate silo that does limited direct interaction. When we talk about multi-stakeholder, we generally talk about the three major stakeholder groups being government, civil society, and business (with sometimes the 'technical community' as a fourth). When I'm at ICANN, I spend the bulk of my time in interaction between commercial and civil society interests, and there is plenty of interaction with more technical groups as well - but the government groups I interact with to a limited extent, and largely informally, and that is in large part because the GAC processes force that. 
	This ostensibly MAG related thread seems to have got very ICANN specific fast. 

	Cheers
		David
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t