[governance] Reinstate the Vote

[Karl Auerbach]

Dan Krimm wrote:

> If there is no formal/structural "inner connection" that the public can
> rely upon, then no matter what Kieren does it is all for surface show

Yes and no.

Kieren has done an excellent job of giving outsiders -- and the public 
is very much an ICANN outsider as compared to the privileged 
"stakeholders" -- a place to nail comments.

But there is no evidence that ICANN actually uses those comments in any 
way that amounts to either "open" or "transparent" behavior, and 
certainly not in a way that creates a chain of "accountability".

Why do I say this?

First of all, there are few things that have ever been written that are 
so crystal clear that there is no ambiguity.  If people in ICANN 
actually read and considered what was written to ICANN there would be 
questions about meaning and some degree of discussion.

The absence of those questions and discussion is, to me, rather 
persuasive proof of an ICANN attitude of distance if not disdain.

Second, we have seen over the years how ICANN reacts with a sharp jerk 
and a jump to the sky, a salute, and a kow tow whenever one of ICANN's 
privileged stakeholders - registries and intellectual property groups 
being two - say even the smallest thing.

But when there is an outpouring of comment from the public.  ICANN 
doesn't even react.

So Kieren has done a nice job - and things have improved enormously - 
but the main problem, which is that ICANN ignores the public and gives 
great preference to selected industrial groups, remains.


> At this point in time, I don't believe that ICANN's processes for public
> input would satisfy the relevant requirements of the Administrative
> Procedures Act that applies to US federal agencies.

When I was on the board I kept a public journal of the input I received, 
the choices I made, and the criteria and methods I used to make those 
choices.  It is still up on the web at 
http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/diary/index.htm

That kind of thing took a great deal of work - and it recorded for all 
to see my mistakes as well as my good choices.  I doubt that many of 
ICANN's board members are willing to undertake a similar level of 
disclosure.

Yet, it does seem incumbent on ICANN's directors to demonstrate in a 
concrete and clear manner that they actually make decisions that are, as 
required by law, both informed and independent and not simply moos and 
bahs of herd.

ICANN's directors operate as if debate and disagreement are some sort of 
pestilence to be avoided at all costs.  Yet we ought to recognize that 
ICANN is a deeply political cauldron.  And we should all understand that 
disagreement, even strong disagreement with strong opinions strongly 
expressed, are intrinsic aspects.  But there are too many within ICANN 
who feel that marching along in perfect time to the music with a smile 
is part and parcel of being an ICANN decision maker.

Hopefully with ICANN's new chairman the board will come to understand 
that energetic disagreement and debate - in a constructive spirit - is 
not something that needs to be swept out of view as it has been in the past.

However, ICANN's use of a nominating committee will tend to produce 
board members who are more like polished stones - smooth, centerist, and 
compromising - than rough rocks - sharp, opinionated, and advocates of 
their positions.  If one believes that progress is better made by 
energetic advocacy rather than mediocratic compromise, then ICANN's 
nominating committee processes may well doom the hope that ICANN can 
escape from its self constructed insularity from the community of 
internet users.


> So, I agree:  Re-establishing public voting for policy-makers at ICANN
> would be one way to engage some gears.

History has shown that it is really the only way.

		--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