[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Kieren McCarthy]

I agree with you Adam.

ICANN's public comment process needs reviewing and standardizing. In fact,
it is already under review and that's why these comments are so useful.
ICANN is preparing a series of "Management Operating Principles" (as you
noted below) and public comment will form a part of one of them. 

While I understand and appreciate the views expressed about the process as
it is at the moment though, I don't follow the argument that ICANN should
therefore stop the comment process until that is done.

The Internet and all its processes are gloriously imperfect and constantly
undergoing change. If we wait for what we perceive as a better method before
embarking on any work, we'll never get anywhere.

The point of my post which everyone seems to have missed is that I am
creating a clear process of comment-to-consideration in my role as general
manager of public participation.

For as long as I remember people have complained that comments made to
ICANN's public forums are not accounted for, or are ignored. I was recently
re-reading the report by John Palfrey and others at Berkman from 2003 which
went into this in great detail.

In fact, it's not true that the comments aren't considered and I am trying
to devise ways in which it can be made clear the impact that useful comments
actually have a policy development process - but it's not easy. (If anyone
knows of structures in place elsewhere for this, please get in touch with
me.)

However this is the point of the RFC I have tried to draw attention to: if
people want to provide their opinions, views and perspectives on recent
changes in ICANN then this is the time and the place to do it.

What's more, I will make sure they are listened to, and I will make sure
everyone knows what they are. That strikes me as something worth doing.

So could we try to get to the point where rather than complaining about the
processes themselves, we actually use them?



Kieren





-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:09 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

I think it would be helpful if ICANN were more 
consistent in how it asks for comments.  There 
are public comments that are part of official 
policy develop processes (agreements posted for 
public comment, etc), actions that either require 
or ICANN desires formal comment (request for 
proposals for contractors, etc), and more 
recently, and particularly with the blog etc, 
there have been more general "have your say" type 
requests.

This latest request seems to fall between the 
formal and informal.  While the intention behind 
the request is excellent, it's unfortunate 
"request for public comments" was used when 
"Dialogue on ICANN's Performance" better 
describes what's being sought, and the 
informality of it.

"Request for Public Comments and Dialogue on 
ICANN's Performance" seems to be part of the same 
overall thread as last year's "Request for 
Comments on ICANN Accountability and Transparency 
Management Operating Principles".  CIRA of course 
has a particular interest in that (they pretty 
much instigated it, and still have cash riding on 
it, or have they paid?) so should not be a 
surprise they reacted as they did.

Answer might be to cut the request for comments 
part from this initial month long dialogue, 
extend the discussion up to and including the San 
Juan meeting, and begin a formal "request for 
comments" along the lines CIRA suggests, building 
on this initial dialogue, after San Juan. And 
internally decide how to describe the different 
requests for input.

Very good that ICANN has become much more open 
and informative --been a breath of fresh air-- 
but I think it needs a bit more control over when 
to be chatty and informal, and when more it's 
being stuffy and international organization-like.

Adam



>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>http://cira.ca/news-releases/201.htm
l
>
>MG
>
____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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