[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

Sun May 13 06:31:41 EDT 2007

I agree, I think Bernie Turcotte's response raises a very valid point and I
will be pushing to have the OECD principles he refers to adopted by ICANN in
future consultations. 

Nonetheless, we do have this RFC in progress and so my point and the reason
for my post is to encourage people to take it seriously. Put simply:

1.	The RFC is serious - please respond
2.	I will - as general manager of public participation - push to have
this issue discussed openly
3.	If people interact and there are useful results, I will make sure
that those views are heard at all appropriate levels in ICANN

People complain ICANN isn't transparent or accountable enough. Well, I've
just stated what I will do, and I have just made myself directly
accountable. Take me up on it.

Kieren

  _____  

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:19 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

In the context of this discussion folks might be interested to take note of
the comments made by CIRA (the folks who look after the .ca domain)  in
response to the ICANN questionnaire.

http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] 
Sent: May 12, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

Hi Kieren,

Just one perhaps unusual (and given the comments that will probably ensue,
somewhat off topic) thought.  You suggest that, "the idea of discussing
ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of
the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly."  That's one
idea, but there are other possibilities in such a dialogue, including
highlighting the bits that do work relatively well, and considering whether
these offer any generalizable lessons worth applying elsewhere.  For
example, long ago and far away, the WGIG did a little exercise where we
tried to look at how some of the key organizations did or didn't comply with
the WSIS principles.  When we compared ITU and ICANN it became immediately
evident that the latter was more transparent and inclusively
participatory/multistakeholder, which made the notion of somehow
transferring functions to the ITU even more patently indefensible, and it
disappeared from the debate.  Proponents of intergovernmental 'oversight'
were then left to propose various sorts new councils etc. that were plainly
not going to go anywhere.  

An instinctive 'circle the wagons' response to proposals for mere discussion
may be as contrary to ICANN's long-term interests as it is to preferences of
ICANN's critics.  Why not view this as an unique opportunity tell ICANN's
story and carpe diem, rather than shutting it down?  And BTW, while there
are undoubtedly people with grievances "that are rapidly becoming
historical," that's not what the caucus is proposing to talk about.  We
deleted the history language long ago and suggested discussion of,  "ICANN's
status as an international organization, its representation of various
constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within
ICANN," which are forward looking topics.

Best,

Bill

On 5/12/07 4:26 PM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:

I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a
lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed
more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this
list.

ICANN has put out a Request for Comments on its performance. And since this
list seems to discuss little else, I really think you should review it and
get involved. 

Taking my newly acquired ICANN hat off for a second, the idea of discussing
ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of
the ICANN model that people don't think are working properly. There are some
genuine grievances there and it's understandable that people would wish them
raised at the Internet Governance Forum. I would argue however that most of
these grievances are rapidly becoming historical, and that is the reason why
the IGF will likely not discuss them.

For those people that are driven solely by a desire to improve the Internet
and its functioning - and I think it's a real shame that you can't simply
assume that - one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work
within ICANN's self-changing processes. 

ICANN hat back on (yes, it was off for that last paragraph). The RFC is out
there for public comment. It is structured around a series of questions
about how ICANN is doing and how it has done (I will list them below). 

I am ICANN's general manager of public participation. That means I consider
it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet
community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the
relevant levels within ICANN.

I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record
stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I
would request that people make use of that.

Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the
usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about
something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is
concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done.
So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be
gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN - if ICANN is
going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as
possible. They will be listened to.

If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason,
then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then
expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your
issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a
helpful outside perspective however, please do respond.

The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANN's sites on 6
June (note: not on this governance mailing list - I will not be considering
material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request
for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely
and I'll stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on
what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about
it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But that's only if the material is
useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the
usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other
things to take up my time.

So, that RFC:

As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking
community feedback about its performance. 

All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of
performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of
particular interest:

*	Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What
improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? 
*	Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements
have been observed and what still needs to be done? 
*	Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy?
What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? 
*	Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements
have been observed and what still needs to be done? 
*	Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of
the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? 
*	What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for
more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the
Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? 
*	What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the
application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other
mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the
reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. 

Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/
until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007 at icann.org.

You can see this announcement here:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm

I have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here:
http://blog.icann.org/?p=125

And I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and
proud of it) here: http://public.icann.org/issues/performance

Feel free to discuss freely on the Public Participation site. If you want a
chatroom for it, just ask. If you want a structured forum page for it, just
ask.

And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as wide as you can.

Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a few weeks.

Kieren

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

kieren.mccarthy at icann.org

  _____  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
***********************************************************

!DSPAM:2676,46460705297288067955487! 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070513/7363ae11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070513/7363ae11/attachment.txt>