[governance] ICANN RFC on its performance

[Karl Auerbach]

I am only adding to this thread on this list because I believe that the 
growth of internet governance must learn from the lessons of the past. 
And in that regard, our experience with ICANN, is book that we must 
examine without rose colored glasses.

That said, let me proceed to illustrate how ICANN teaches us that we 
must embed into new bodies of internet governance, in a very deep and 
organic way, mechanisms that require it to have real openness, real 
transparency, and real accountability to the community of internet users.

If we chose not to learn our new bodies of internet governance may 
become, as ICANN appears to have become, captured by exactly those 
forces it is purported to oversee and become ossified and non-responsive 
to the needs for which it was established.

I believe that Kieren's presence at ICANN is a very large positive 
change and I deeply appreciate that he chose to give notice here of the 
ICANN request for comments.  And I personally very much appreciate the 
way he is working to create communications channels.  Kieren deserves 
our standing applause, and then some.

So with the primary intent of learning through re-examination of events 
past, let me proceed:

Veni Markovski wrote:

> But ICANN has changed since the time you wrote it.

Changed?  Yes - it has added a few frills and a lot of staff.  But the 
core shape and issues remain the same.

Yet it still remains that previous, and still valid, concrete 
recommendations are being actively ignored.

Those recommendations to which I refer are as valid today as they were 
three years ago.  And unlike the "thousands" of comments to which you 
refer, these were made in the form of an official ICANN communication 
written in the performance of his duty and after considerable research 
by a sitting Director to the Board of Directors.

It is sad that the main place where this official communication is to be 
found is in testimony before the United States Senate ( 
http://www.cavebear.com/rw/senate-july-31-2003.htm ) rather than in any 
ICANN place.

You may try to write them off as years old.  But does not ICANN's 
failure to hear what was said not add reinforce underlying message that 
ICANN simply does not care and that it will use this current round of 
comments, exactly has it has used previous rounds, to create merely an 
appearance without actual substance?

You again and again say "contribute something new".  Perhaps that would 
be a valid comment had ICANN ever changed and had its old flaws been 
repaired.

Perhaps ICANN ought to respond to the concrete, specific comments that 
were made rather than trying to evade their existence.

Tell me why this recommendation from the report is stale or inappropriate:

Recommendation: All meetings of the Board of Directors and of its 
committees should be audio-recorded and made available to the public. 
No matter may be elided except after an on-record decision that a 
particular matter should be discussed off the audio recording.  Only 
matters pertaining to personnel matters, litigation (or potential 
litigation), and contract negotiations may be discussed off the audio 
record.

Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's directors each receive a 
stipend so that they can afford the time and expense to independently 
inform themselves on matters is a recommendation that is somehow stale 
or inappropriate?

Tell me why the recommendation that ICANN's board have its own separate 
legal counsel so that it may know when it is being led around by the 
nose by ICANN's President and "staff", is somehow stale or inappropriate?

  Your recommendations
> were published at this time, they were part of the hearings at the US 
> Senate, and they are in many records.

And you point is what?  That ICANN is selective about which of its 
official communications it choses to publish?

You will not find these recommendations on on ICANN operated repository. 
  In other words, ICANN suppressed, and apparently still suppresses, 
concrete written recommendations made during the course of a public 
meeting by a sitting director.

I find it amusing how ICANN brackets the spectrum - at one end it has 
unlawfully denied sitting directors the exercise of their legal rights. 
  And at the other end it tries to selectively pretend that some of its 
official communications do not exist.

Perhaps we might conclude that ICANN's role in internet governance, to 
the very limited degree that it is even a body of *internet* governance, 
as opposed to a body of trademark and registry protection, is to show us 
the road *not* to be followed in the future.

		--karl--
____________________________________________________________
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