LACRALO final statement on At-Large White Paper

Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected" (R3 White Paper)

 

The White Paper's introduction mentions that professionals and internet users in general consider ICANN has played the role of technical coordinator quite well, but does not give specific references of this. Generally throughout the document this continues with no references given to the sources of the various points that are dealt, which questions the basis upon which the recommendations are made.

With regard to challenges to adapt to the changes:

1) The Global Public Interest;

We agree that the affirmation of commitments from ICANN has big challenges ahead and that public interest is a dynamic concept which is not easy to adapt.

We observe that the document is unclear, in mentioning that ICANN has a concept of public interest but does not define that concept. It is recommended that such definition be inserted for reference purposes. Further, the definition of "clear strategy of participation" must also be included; this is useful for readers to know why ICANN needs mechanisms for creating balanced input of its constituent units as part of the Multi-stakeholder model (perhaps an example would be appropriate), as well as the ways in which participation mechanisms can take place.

In the strategic area of focus "A healthy ecosystem of Internet governance" within the strategic plan, some strategic objectives are ease of global participation, increase the diversity of stakeholders and increase of diversity of stakeholders' work. Also within the roles of the Board is as follows: "The fundamental responsibility of Directors (as defined below) is to exercise their business judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of ICANN and in the global public interest, taking account of the interests of the Internet community as a whole rather than any individual or interest group."

Recommendations:

We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group.

The term public interest should be part of the ICANN strategic plan, we know that the plan is divided into 4 approaches www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2012-2015-18may12-en.pdf, and the public interest is the sum of all of them, therefore the accountability and impact reports are also important.

 

 

(2) T he Multi-Stakeholder System - A choice for the future;

We are in agreement that ICANN has not introduced innovations to the model. Previous models with greater participation of government agencies and other influential actors failed, so without doubt this Model is always tested and must adapt to new realities.

We agree with the Group on the need for real efforts by all parties which constitute ICANN. The challenge being that the balance is increasingly difficult to find when participation levels are higher; and it is the same evolution that makes it necessary to revise the rules, since the conditions and realities that were considered at the time of its dictates are not the same today.

We should be more involved with internal communities of ICANN, such as the RALOS.

Recommendations:

We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group, but would further recommend that GAC resolutions could be public also.

We believe that the model also requires mobility of people within the constituent units, since the community recognises that there is the danger of the same people in the same group of positions or rotating between themselves, and there is no renewal of  new participants.

Likewise, model needs to emphasize scholarship programs, including the fellowship program, which allows new and greater participation from all sectors. The development of programs that allow increased participation must not be neglected.

(3) Global Governance

With respect to internal governance, we agree with the issues raised by the group with an emphasis on policies of conflicts of interest that have the greatest impact in the community. A reference document detailing the weaknesses mentioned in the White Paper should be included.

Recommendations:

We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group and wish to highlight the importance of the reforms relating to the NOMCOM and the role of the Ombudsman. These important structures of internal governance must have transparent and clear functions and procedures.

 

(4) Institutional and Practical Cooperation

The non technical issues that mentioned the White Paper which have an impact on the work of ICANN mostly pre-exist ICANN or Internet yet have direct impact on the internet community in ways such as social, economic, labor and institutional. Therefore ICANN must assess the impact of their policies to not adversely affect these non technical aspects in the execution of their duties. ICANN should therefore interact with all cooperating or coordinating organizations in the various activities, this will leverage on the multi-stakeholder model that currently operates.

Recommendations:

We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group. We underline the need for ensuring permanent but dynamic relations with all stakeholders in the Internet ecosystem (http://icann.xplane.com) and development networks. This may take place through conventions, work in Assemblies or event organization plans.

ICANN should also take advantage of it own human resources, as the majority of ICANN participants are also active in many other Internet governance forums or in institutions relating to the Internet.