[governance] ICANN and the IGF

[Kieren McCarthy]

> > Why do we need to reopen in this list the discussion of when who  
> > did what in 2003 or beyond?

> Drifting, as usual, initiated by someone who doesn't like a given  
> subject being discussed, or how it is discussed..



Can we please just kill the paranoia for one day?

I reported on ICANN for over five years and followed every twist and turn,
and I have now worked as an ICANN staffer for seven months.

If there was one conclusion I could draw from all of this - for people
working on ICANN staff, for people working within the ICANN model, and for
people that watch and comment on ICANN from outside, it would be this:

STOP WASTING SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT SECOND-GUESSING EVERYONE


The reality is that when you manage to form a channel free from ego and
paranoia - which is usually achieved when trying to get something practical
done - then everyone tends to work together, starts to trust one another,
starts sharing information and as a result everyone is happier AND we end up
with a useful end-result.

The amount of time spent decrying every aspect of ICANN's work would be more
understandable if people actually asked questions rather than threw around
accusations based on hearsay and a few snippets of information inaccurately
extrapolated. Why don't you just ask?

One of the most important aspects with respect to ICANN and the IGF this
time around was that ICANN was open. The new chairman went out of his way to
explain that ICANN was prepared to discuss every aspect of its work. ICANN
held its own open session. ICANN staff were available to talk to across the
meeting. Several times, the CEO even answered questions completely unrelated
to the topic of the session.

In my role as general manager of public participation I have gone out of my
way to provide information to anyone that asks about what ICANN is doing. I
was hoping this would then turn into participation in the ICANN processes. 

But following this IGF, I think it's time I spent more time getting more
people to participate within the ICANN processes, and less time answering
the queries of those determined to find fault with the organisation.

I hope Danny Younger will forgive me if I use him as an example. Danny was
an early attendee of ICANN meetings and policy processes and has been a
consistent critic of both. But his frustration and irritation is directed at
why important perspectives aren't being heard, or not being properly
threaded through ICANN's processes. Sometimes it's because it is opaque as
to how the information and views he provides make it through the system.

Danny is also the most persistent and precise asker of information from
ICANN and I have done my best to answer every one of his queries (although I
still have two queries I need to get back to him on).

Because of that engagement, I think it's fair to say his sense of distrust
has lifted and partially as a result, Danny put in a lot of time and trouble
and gave an excellent presentation on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
changes at the most recent meeting in Los Angeles. 

I didn't get to see it, but I was told by both ICANN staff and those in the
ICANN community that it was extremely useful and as a result is likely to
have an impact on the final policy decisions made.

THIS IS HOW THE ICANN MODEL WORKS


If you want ALAC to be able to elect Board members - where were you during
the open session where the NomCom's entire role was discussed?

If you want the GNSO setup to be changed - did you post a comment on the
public comment board about it?

If you think the new gTLDs rules are unclear - where are your emails and
phonecalls saying so?

If you think ICANN has to improve its accountability and transparency - have
you attended any of the three public meetings on it? Have you responded to
either of the two public comment forums?

Have you provided input aimed at adjusting or improving wording or
processes? Or have you just complained and provided nothing to work with?

And if you say you were unaware that these things were going on - have you
subscribed to the news alerts, to the magazine, to the intersessional
newsletter? Do you check out the public comment page on ICANN's website?

If you were not able to attend the last ICANN meeting - did you review the
meeting's online participation site? Did you post a comment to the chatroom?




And even if after all this you feel ICANN is somehow still not enabling you
to interact and participate with it - then please send me an email
explaining why not, and what you would like to see, and I will do whatever I
can to help.


But can we please stop rehashing the past and making snide paranoid comments
about each others' motivations. It's tedious and self-defeating.

If you want to get involved in ICANN, or you want to improve what comes out
of ICANN's processes, or if you want to make it clear that you don't think
ICANN should get involved in certain areas, then the only way that is going
to work is if you participate within the processes. 

Because they are open to all, there will never be the same sort of value
attached to criticism outside the model that you see in other organisations
in other industries across the world.

If you want any help, email me at kieren.mccarthy at icann.org, or for
information on how ICANN works, how to join a supporting organisation and so
on, email get-involved at icann.org.


Cheers



Kieren



____________________________________________________________
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