[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

Sat May 12 14:26:25 EDT 2007

Hi Kieren,

Just one perhaps unusual (and given the comments that will probably ensue,
somewhat off topic) thought.  You suggest that, ³the idea of discussing
ICANN at the IGF is, I assume, in order to draw attention to the elements of
the ICANN model that people don¹t think are working properly.²  That¹s 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 didn¹t 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 oversight¹
were then left to propose various sorts new councils etc. that were plainly
not going to go anywhere.

An instinctive circle the wagons¹ response to proposals for mere discussion
may be as contrary to ICANN¹s long-term interests as it is to preferences of
ICANN¹s critics.  Why not view this as an unique opportunity tell ICANN¹s
story and carpe diem, rather than shutting it down?  And BTW, while there
are undoubtedly people with grievances ³that are rapidly becoming
historical,² that¹s not what the caucus is proposing to talk about.  We
deleted the history language long ago and suggested discussion of,  ³ICANN's
status as an international organization, its representation of various
constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within
ICANN,² 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 don¹t think are working properly. There are some
> genuine grievances there and it¹s 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 it¹s a real shame that you can¹t simply
> assume that  one of the most effective ways of doing that will be to work
> within ICANN¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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
> I¹ll 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 that¹s 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 Internet¹s
> 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
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070512/bd411c14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070512/bd411c14/attachment.txt>