Report from the ISOC @ ICANN 50 meeting

More than 3,000 people gathered in London last week to participate in the largest ever ICANN meeting. Roxana Radu, ISOC-CH Vice Chair of Internal Affairs attended the ICANN Meeting, a part of which included an ISOC meeting on 23 June 2014. Participants in this meeting were 80 ISOC chapter delegates and staff in situ and 70 ISOC delegates on Webex. Here is a short synopsis of the ISOC meeting that day.

Four items covered in the meeting were an IGF update, the Public Interest Registry update, a presentation on “Best practice: Engaging with government & policy makers in Armenia”and also an extensive open discussion on the “IANA oversight transition.”

The Meeting agenda is available here: and there are audio archives and more information shared in links at the end of the article.


ITEM 1: Internet Governance Forum Update

Speaker: Markus Kummer

  • The 2014 IGF meeting takes place in Istanbul from 2-5 September (
  • Sustainability of IGF: Markus is currently leading an initiative to create a non-profit association in support of the IGF (for collecting money and working on capacity building). It is expected that this association will be launched in Istanbul as a Swiss entity. Its mission will be to support national and regional IGFs (collecting best practices might be a good start).
  • ISOC’s IGF Ambassadorship programme: commitment to leadership and education, but for the moment the program is being paused and is in a transition period with bigger investment in the e-learning programs and looking for ways to scale up.


ITEM 2: Public Interest Registry Update

Speaker: Maarten Botterman

  • Fostering NGO participation through was the topic.
  • Registry to be able to run from 1 January 2015, a registrar aimed to support NGOs to find their space on and through the Internet.
  • Offering a platform in the best conditions (as discussed with the NGO community).


ITEM 3: Best practice: Engaging with government & policy makers in Armenia

Speaker: Lianna Galstyan

  • Sharing experiences from the IGF Armenia


ITEM 4: Open Discussion: IANA oversight transition

Moderator: Narelle Clark

  • Appointing people on the IANA transition committee. The process is to be coordinated by ICANN (large coordination mechanism with 27 members –ISOC nominates 2, applications still accepted until Wednesday 25 June at noon).
  • Criteria put together by ISOC Board with contribution of the larger community:
    • A clear appreciation of the nature of multi-stakeholder participation and governance including a familiarity with consensus-based decision-making systems;
    • Demonstrated expertise in the technical procedures, practices and administration of the Internet particularly as it relates to the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet, its protocols and operation;
    • Familiarity with the IANA operating model;
    • A solid understanding of the overarching governance and contractual principles;
    • Ability and confidence of the Internet Society community to operate within the broader diplomatic environment;
    • The willingness to devote time and energy to this process; and
    • Other such criteria as deemed appropriate by the nominations committee for effective performance.
    • Deadline for nominations: Wednesday, 25 June 2014 at noon

It is expected that an announcement will be made of the nominees at the closure of the Board of Trustees meeting 28 June 2014 should consensus be reached.

  • In order for ISOC to better position itself in the IANA transition discussion, there is a proposal to consider what the worst/the best case scenario is, thus acknowledging potential consequences ; the danger is that in the absence of a clear positioning, the US might decide to postpone the transition (by 4 years).
  • What would enhance the contribution of ISOC ? What are the other members of the coordination group likely to say, which views are they likely to represent?
    • Points of convergence: the user perspective (ISOC is uniquely positioned through its chapters in the world, ties with technical and user communities, feedback from constituency).
    • Points of difference: advantage of ISOC: GAC will find it difficult to get inventive, creative solutions (GAC consensus impedes that –minimum common denominator position) important for ISOC to bring in the views that are not already represented
    • Bringing in ideas from the entire community: representatives cannot be mere delegates.
  • Need to foster education about IANA, but also about money flows within ICANN (still largely unaccountable for money-related aspects); important to point out that IANA has functions beyond ICANN : maintenance of the IETF protocols; table of IP addresses –these pillars are policy development processes with their own oversight and implementation at the IANA level.
  • Accountability is fundamental for the process –ISOC should not present itself as yet another actor, but as representative of a very wide spectrum of different stakeholders.


Additional Resources

Audio archives and transcripts of the two relevant sessions are available on the ICANN 50 website:

Similar Posts