[At-Large] Keynote Remarks from Larry Strickling - supports multi-stakeholder model

[Evan Leibovitch]

Seen from the other side...

The position of the US Gov't seems to be that ICANN alternately invokes and
ignores the multi-stakeholder model as it pleases to in order to advance the
domain industry agenda. Governments, having given advice and been spurned on
any initiative that is not convenient to the domain industry, feel compelled
to resort to more aggressive tactics.

Indeed, The USG may have concluded -- with substantial justification -- that
ICANN's claims of "multi-stakeholder" only apply if those stakeholders come
from a domain industry which has effectively captured ICANN policy making
through threats, aggressive lobbying and support from empire-building senior
staff. Certainly a survey of those ICANN stakeholders which do not profit
from the buying or selling of domains -- ICANN's Advisory Committees and the
non-contracted house of the GNSO -- would indicate deep dissatisfaction with
the current direction. The ALAC still maintains the official position that
the current gTLD application process is "unacceptable".

Of course such public-interest advice has been largely ignored, because even
before the GAC involvement ICANN has been acting as if it has had a gun to
its head. How much of its policies, operations and corporate culture are
currently based on risk management?

In other words, the playing field has been badly unbalanced long before
Strickland stuck his nose in. Years of structural imbalance, industry
arrogance and multi-stakeholder lip-service  is now meeting its match, at
the hands of a spurned stakeholder returning with a bigger gun.

The Singapore "Open the gTLD floodgates" party may yet happen, but I for one
would not mourn its cancellation.

- Evan



On 7 May 2011 18:39, Antony Van Couvering <avc at namesatwork.com> wrote:

> The position of the US Gov't seems to be that the multi-stakeholder model
> is fantastic, as long as ICANN follows GAC advice to the letter. Usually
> when someone is pointing a gun at you and telling you what to do, that's not
> called "multi-stakeholder" and it's not called "advice" either.
>
> Antony