<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=008043421-12052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=008043421-12052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=008043421-12052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><A
href="http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html">http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.html</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=008043421-12052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=008043421-12052007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>MG</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> William Drake
[mailto:drake@hei.unige.ch] <BR><B>Sent:</B> May 12, 2007 11:26
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Governance<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] ICANN RFC on
its performance<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">Hi Kieren,<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>Bill<BR><BR>On 5/12/07 4:26 PM,
"Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>
wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000080><FONT size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px">I recognise that raising this may be the online
equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then
*<B>not raising it</B>* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of
knowledge and expertise on this list.<BR> <BR>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.
<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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.
<BR> <BR>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). <BR> <BR>I am ICANN’s general manager of public participation.
That means I consider it *<B>my job</B>* 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.<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>So, that
RFC:<BR> <BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">As part of an ongoing
interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback
about its performance. <BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">All responses are welcome. Targeted comments
regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN
Strategic Plan, are of particular interest:<BR></SPAN></FONT>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">Is ICANN
becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements
have been observed and what still needs to be done?</SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"> </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">Has ICANN
improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed
and what still needs to be done?</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"> </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">Has ICANN
improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements
have been observed and what still needs to be done?</SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"> </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">Has ICANN
increased international participation? What improvements have been
observed and what still needs to be done?</SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"> </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">Have there
been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN
multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done?</SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"> </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">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?</SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"> </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">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.</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">
<BR></SPAN></FONT></LI></UL><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">Comments will be received at <A
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/">http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/</A>
until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to:
performance-2007@icann.org.<BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR> <BR>You can
see this announcement here: <A
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm</A><BR> <BR>I
have also put up a blog post about it (open to comments) here: <A
href="http://blog.icann.org/?p=125">http://blog.icann.org/?p=125</A><BR> <BR>And
I have created a page on the Public Participation site (wide open and proud
of it) here: <A
href="http://public.icann.org/issues/performance">http://public.icann.org/issues/performance</A><BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>And please do spread the news of this RFC as far and as
wide as you can.<BR> <BR> <BR>Cheers. See you all in Geneva in a
few
weeks.<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>Kieren<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><BR></SPAN><FONT
color=#000080><FONT size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR> <BR>Kieren McCarthy<BR>General manager of
public participation,
ICANN<BR> <BR>kieren.mccarthy@icann.org<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><BR>
<HR align=center width="95%" SIZE=3>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the
list:<BR> governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To be
removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For
all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><BR><BR>***********************************************************<BR>William
J. Drake drake@hei.unige.ch<BR>Director, Project on the
Information<BR> Revolution and Global
Governance/PSIO<BR> Graduate Institute for International
Studies<BR> Geneva, Switzerland<BR><A
href="http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html">http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html</A><BR>***********************************************************<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>!DSPAM:2676,46460705297288067955487!
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>