Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected" (R3 White Paper)
The introduction of the document mentions that professionals and internet users in general considered that ICANN has played quite well the role of technical coordination, but not specific references to it are given. And in general, in the document does not give references to the sources of the various points that are dealt, which are then made recommendations.
With regard to challenges to adapt to the changes:
1) The global public interest;
We share the belief that the affirmation of commitments from ICANN has a big challenge ahead and that public interest is a dynamic concept which is not easy to adapt.
We believe that the document is not clear since it mentions that ICANN has a concept of public interest but does not mention which. It would be best to mention it for a better feeedback. It should be defined that he is meant by "clear strategy of participation", since the text it does not arise. And it would be good for readers to know the reasons why ICANN need mechanisms for not being captive of one of its constituent units, an example would be good. And mentioned which parts of the participation mechanisms that are not clear.
In the strategic plan referred to, within one of the strategic areas of focus called "A healthy ecosystem of Internet governance" some strategic objectives are ease of global participation and increase the diversity of work of stakeholders and between stakeholders. Not to mention that 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 so 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.
Model never worked before with greater participation of government agencies and other actors who are able to exert influences, so without doubt the 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 make up ICANN. The balance to be searched is increasingly difficult when participation is higher. And it is the same evolution that makes it necessary to revise the statutes, since the conditions that were considered at the time of its dictates are not the same today.
We should be more involved with internal communities of ICANN, as the RALOS.
Recommendations:
We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group.
As a recommendation, it would be interesting that GAC resolutions could be public also.
We believe that the model also needs mobility of people within the constituent units, since the community sees that they are always the same people in the same positions or rotating between a few, and there is no renewal.
Likewise, model needs emphasizing scholarship programs, like the fellowship program, which allows new and greater participation from all sectors. And the development of programs that allow increased participation.
(3) Global Governance, and
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 document should be carried out with the weaknesses mentioned in the document.
Recommendations:
We agree with the recommendations given by the members of the group. We just want to highlight the importance of the reforms of the Committee on nominations and the role of the Ombudsman. They are important structures of internal governance, which by their functions should have transparency and clarity in its functions and procedures.
(4) Institutional and Practical Cooperation.
These non techniques issues that mentioned the document which has an impact on the work of ICANN, are most preexisting ICANN or Internet and have direct impact on the community in social, economic, labor and institutional, so ICANN must make sure to assess the impact of their policies to not affect adversely several aspects that are out of their duties.
For the achievement of this goal ICANN should interact with all organizations trying to cooperate or coordinate various activities taking advantage of 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 permanent ensuring permanent and dynamic relations with the rest of the players in the ecosystem of the internet (http://icann.xplane.com) and development networks, perhaps through conventions, work in Assembly or event organization plan.
Highlights that ICANN should also take advantage of it own human resources, since most of those involved in ICANN, also active in many other Internet governance forums or in institutions relating to the Internet..
