[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sun May 13 11:08:03 EDT 2007
Kieren
I guess,there is an obvious question in light of what you admit
following CIRA, is a seriously flawed process.
Why not postpone or cancel this one and set up a process that isn't
flawed, and that does follow the OECD guidelines?
This would, I think, go quite some way to satisfying the concerns that
you have expressed about the possible nature of this discussion, fixing
what might be a very contentious (and even delegitimized) process, and
responding to the publicly expressed concerns of a very significant
stakeholder in ICANN i.e. CIRA.
That will take this process out of the realm of "trust me" and "we'll do
better next time", and into a framework of public accountability and
widely acceptable legitimacy.
MG
-----Original Message-----
From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com]
Sent: May 13, 2007 3:32 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein'
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance
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:2676,4646e92c297281538616383!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070513/c805a3f7/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/c805a3f7/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list