Generally speaking, it can be said that the EC has had a tense but changing relationship with ICANN. Earlier, it had supported moves to make ICANN more accountable to its stakeholders outside of the US Government; Later, it wrote to the US Government asking it to intervene in decisions by the [[ICANN Board]] that it did not agree with. It still largely claims to support the multi-stakeholder model, though it seems to want a privileged control over final decisions. It's statements in the recent past have shown a deep passion for potential changes to the Internet and [[Root Zone|root zone]], but a general lack of knowledge with regards to the extent of previous debates and ICANN's traditional functions. Recently, they seem to be pushing for greater oversight over ICANN. | Generally speaking, it can be said that the EC has had a tense but changing relationship with ICANN. Earlier, it had supported moves to make ICANN more accountable to its stakeholders outside of the US Government; Later, it wrote to the US Government asking it to intervene in decisions by the [[ICANN Board]] that it did not agree with. It still largely claims to support the multi-stakeholder model, though it seems to want a privileged control over final decisions. It's statements in the recent past have shown a deep passion for potential changes to the Internet and [[Root Zone|root zone]], but a general lack of knowledge with regards to the extent of previous debates and ICANN's traditional functions. Recently, they seem to be pushing for greater oversight over ICANN. |