<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394">Thanks for the thoughtful response, Olivier.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394">[ much cut ]</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Of course some will dispute the IETF as being expensive for
participants since one has to pay to register to attend an IETF
meeting and it is nearly impossible to get a standard through the
IETF process without physically attending an IETF meeting - or more
than one.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">The state of virtual meeting technology makes this problem addressable should the will exist. Vote-by-humming will have to be adapted but it's doable.<br></div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Others, primarily from Civil Society, will tell you that NetMundial
was a complete failure. Remember how Civil Society withdrew its
support at the end?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">They were upset that government got more say than they did, what they wanted was not likely to be acceptable to anyone else. Still, that model had plenty of room to adapt -- again, should the will exist.</div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Meanwhile ... the current status quo is
propped up by never-ending FUD that the only alternative to
ICANN's model of industry capture is the ITU model of government
capture. Of course, the ITU does its part to support ICANN by
periodically holding meetings so incompetently run so to justify
the fear. What is not spoken about is the fact that genuine
options exist beyond these two undesirable extremes.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Please elaborate on these options. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">One that I have personally liked flips the AC/SO model, so it is the public interest bodies whose consensus binds ICANN (governments, at-large/civil society, technical community) while the commercial interests are in the advisory role.<br></div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">And it sounds like you are yourself aware of alternate ways to go</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">If a sane alternative does not arise, we
will continue to be presented with nothing more than choice
between the ICANN or ITU ways of doing things. Eventually the
ITU will win this binary duel because ultimately governments
will tire of the unwillingness of ICANN to truly incorporate the
public interest into its decision-making. And I remind once
again that there is no international treaty requiring the
countries of the world to acknowledge ICANN as manager of the
global DNS; ICANN's mandate is maintained through inertia and
(ever-diminishing) goodwill.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is the only point which I do not agree with you.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I really hope you are right.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Because ICANN is not treaty-supported, it only takes one major scandal or major misfunction at ICANN to bring "plan B" to the forefront. I agree that government capture -- especially with the participation of countries who see the Internet as a way to force direction of social behavior -- is inferior to the status quo. But I truly believe that the current ICANN model is unsustainable, and without a credible middle path there may be no alternative once ICANN runs out of steam (and friends).<br></div></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">Consider that ICANN is part of a much bigger picture unfolding globally. Governments around the world have become fed up with unregulated Internet companies which have stifled consumer competition (Amazon), facilitated disinformation on a global scale (Facebook), made the trade of people's private data their core revenue model (Google) and locked consumers into closed technical ecosystems (Apple).<br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">I personally see a changing mood of the public that is increasingly calling on governments to regulate these companies. The world is tired of Mark Zuckerberg endlessly saying "we're doing our best, leave us alone". What broad form the inevitable backlash will take is unknown but is already happening country by country, from the Chinese social credit system or the massive EU fines on Google. Even the regulatory-light USA still has its own very clear and heavily enforced limits (ie, online gambling).</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">My point here is that whatever direction these global moves go, ICANN is going to get caught up in them. In its own way ICANN's embedded industry entitlement attitude exhibits exactly the same kind of "we're doing our best, leave us alone" mentality that the world sees from GAFA. If ICANN refuses the role of regulator, something else is inevitably destined to take that role. But what?<br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">ICANN, unlike GAFA, has the means to reform itself. But post-IANA I posit that its situation is worse. The "empowered community" further entrenches the "inmates are running the asylum" model that resists oversight (let alone regulation) from outside the cartel. ICANN's community, collectively, appears to the outside world no less arrogant than GAFA -- and no less worthy of reaction.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">What role will we in the public interest community play in that reaction? Time will tell if we press for real reform or are satisfied with the current industry capture with a little tinkering.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default">- Evan</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)" class="gmail_default"><br></div></div></div></div>