FW: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

Sun May 13 06:48:05 EDT 2007

Kieren,

I am surprised by the tenor of your mail. If one is genuinely interested in
finding out how one (or ones institution) can improve; humility and openness
are pre-requisites. If you have already decided what will be valuable and
what will not be valuable in others views, and also are using colorful
language on possible feedback (see excerpts below)

"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 " . 
"please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect
it to be included in discussions"
"I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults" 
"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"

it is unlikely to be conducive to getting to know and understand what others
think about icann.

Bill Drake has already responded with why the discussions on this list
relating to icann are not 'historical' or purely 'negative'. There are other
reasons why your posting on the RFC can be considered flawed.

1. the critical issue for this list is not just 'how icann can be made more
efficient' but rather that what is the ig space and includes what can be the
icann role in that space and what is the legitimacy icann requires in order
to play such a role (current icann structure is illegitimate - it plays a
role in governing global resources and is under the control of a single
govt, secondly with this illegitimacy, it seems to be moving from working
for 'technical stability" to clearly issues of public policy domain as was
evident from the recent discussions on the .xxx gtld - see also the report
from Karl Auerbach). 

2. the goal is not merely being "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." ...

it can also be how to make a new paradigm as the internet meaningful to the
large sections across the world who have been historically marginalized. The
focus is not solely on the internet itself, but how development and equity
goals can be furthered (as they indeed can be) through the new information
society that we are attempting to build. The current set of internet users
are the ones who may benefit most from a better functioning internet, but to
make internet actually 'available' (not in terms of mere access, but rather
of effective use) to everybody in the world is a challenge for internet
governance, far bigger than 'better functioning'. And as we have argued
earlier on this list, the internet community is not merely those who logon
today, but all those who are impacted by the net (which is or will soon be
the entire humanity).  And in the same vein, the views in Dhaka or Accra may
be different from what you may find in San Juan on icann.

3. The support to the above view comes from the goal of a 'development
oriented information society' that the WSIS DOP calls for; and how icann and
other institutions can help towards building such a society. The goal also
is how such a process itself can be as participatory and democratic as
possible, beyond usual 'inter-governmental pacts' or beyond 'privatised
arrangments' (such as icann) to one with greater role for civil society and
other constitutencies. 

Sorry to say it, but the sort of arrogance / intolerance i see in your mail
is what can put others off. Just as we have to assume (and rightly so imo)
that those who see icann as the best possible institutional arrangement for
internet governance are driven by their vision of a better society, those
that find icann an illegitimate, non-transparent, exclusive, non-accountable
institution should be assumed to be equally so driven and discussions on
this list have often been brave efforts across this spectrum to figure out
some ways forward.

I have tried to keep my post as mild as possible and hope it wont be
labelled as a 'diatribe'! Hope you can reconsider your RFP terms and more
importantly the underlying thinking. It may enthuse more to contribute to
your efforts in this regard, as general manager for 'public participation'.

Guru 
  _____  

From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:57 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070513/ef882c7e/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/ef882c7e/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070513/ef882c7e/attachment-0001.txt>