[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

Sun May 13 09:00:58 EDT 2007

This, mind you, is the response from ICANN's *general manager of public
participation*!! Is this the view of public participation ICANN encourages??

It seems once some people get a position within ICANN they become
almighty teachers of how-to and the absolute reference on what is
acceptable, "positive" or whatever. Kieren only wants "positive",
"objective" feedback from us stupid students and will discard what he
thinks are "moanings". Veni teaches poor stubborn Norbert how to write a
"positive" contribution.

Have you noticed this is a discussion list among peers, whatever our
jobs, origins, inclinations or expertises?

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "'Guru at ITfC'" <guru at itforchange.net>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:58:32 +0100
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

> Thankyou for proving my point Guru. 
> 
>  
> 
> However, if anyone does wish to provide useful feedback to ICANN's
> performance, the RFC is there. I hope I have flagged it up
> sufficiently and
> made it clear that there is a clear route from comment to
> consideration
> within ICANN.
> 
>  
> 
> I will now go back to being just an occasional reader of this mailing
> list.
> If anyone wishes to contact me personally, please email me.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Kieren
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Guru at ITfC [mailto:guru at itforchange.net] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:48 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: FW: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

____________________________________________________________
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