Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model Session - Shared screen with speaker view
Please put the link to slides into the chat
Slide deck for this session has been published in this chat room.
I would go further PDP3.0 worryingly seems to exclude individuals who are not a member of a constituency. This excludes busy people who find a single constituency membership too restrictive to relate well to their view of the world.
When submitting a question that you want me to read out loud on the microphone in this session, please provide your name and affiliation if you are representing one, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. When submitting a comment that you want me to read out loud on the microphone, once again provide your name and affiliation if you have one then start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the mic.
But many of them only advocate for their own constituency interests Steve, what we need are people who advocate for building better solutions for all constituencies not just their own.
As a reminder, the slide deck for today’s session has been uploaded to the chat room. We will publish them online after the session.
Nice to see Brian responding in French
Thanks @Diana, we will search it
A lot of it is less than ideal chairing. What we probably need is better training for working group chairs.
The slides will be published on the session page (https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116764) as well as the main Evolving MSM page (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance-plan-improve-multistakeholder-model-2019-04-08-en) after today’s session.
If the question does not fit into the session topics, please take it on record for the required level of attention:
<question> Could ICANN evolve this model, not only for the DNS, but as a framework to be replicated in mainstream governance? Even in the interest of DNS governance, could ICANN work on increasingly high level participation of Governments and Business and Civil Society reaching out to one through another? (Are these the defined stakeholder classes, or, are there more groups to balance?) Or, dedicate one of its meetings every year as High Level, perhaps upgrade the policy forum? Or, (suspending cost and time concerns) perhaps a Meeting D, or a 3 day Winter Retreat, with open sessions open to Registered remote participation? (Meeting D makes it somewhat possible to reorient A or B or C to be more informal to promote trust). Better understanding of the multi-stakeholder process at high levels could expedite faster evolution and in the process empower the participating Community, especially GAC Representatives with the required authority, the absence of which slows down processes. <question>
Thank you Sivasubramanian, we’ll read your question aloud.
Thank you. It was very helpful.
UPDATE: the slide deck is now posted here: https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116764
Imran Hossen ( EyHost )
In PDPs I’ve been a member of stalemate seems to stem from lack of leadership abilities of the chairs. For example where a chair wishes to only support the working group when the work undertaken is aligned with their own personal or their own constituency interests, at all other times they use process itself or a refusal to engage to frustrate the progress of the working group.
Chris Disspain is right about Trust, which is most often about disagreements over priorities