[governance] Reinstate the Vote

[Dan Krimm]

At 8:36 PM -0800 11/20/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

>I'll tell you quite bluntly what the problem with public comments are the
>moment: it's a vicious circle. Poor quality comments (for whatever reason)
>means the input isn't valued, which leads to people not bothering, which
>leads to whatever comments are made not being taken seriously.


Getting back to this point, in light of Lee's comment:

This may be less of a "vicious circle" than a chicken-egg conundrum: who
goes first.  The only systematic solution I see to this is to formally
require substantive responses by ICANN policy bodies to substantive
comments from the public, regardless of whether "the input is valued" or
not.

This is the part of the cycle under ICANN's direct control.

So, your action item:

>I am trying to break this circle by making sure summary/analyses of comments
>are produced and are then explicitly reviewed by the body in question.

... is a useful start, but I think it needs to be augmented in order to
fully engage the gears:

"And after review, the body in question must include in the final report
explicit responses to all matters of relevant substance raised by the
public, rationally and coherently justifying the final policy proposal in
light of public comments, before the report can be delivered to the Board."

Yes, this creates more work, but it is necessary in order to support
meaningful accountability of ICANN to public voice.  It also requires
reference to the original comments, and not only the summary, which can be
helpful in pre-digesting the task but should not preempt the policy body
from addressing the individual comments directly, as it is the body's
responsibility to ensure that it has indeed addressed all the substantive
issues.  (If there are some similar comments, I think they can legitimately
be grouped into a single response, but the volume of comments conforming to
a single viewpoint ought to be noted in the process and incorporated into
the evaluation driving the response.)



Once the question of "value" is addressed formally through procedural
mandates required of "the body in question" it ensures that public input
will be taken into account regardless of what the body in question thinks
about it.  The body will at least be forced to address the substance -- in
principle it might even lead to a greater chance of changes in the
recommended policy before finalizing the report.  And if the body cannot
provide a rational justification for its response, it will be open to
legitimate criticism, which should entail some formal recourse with
meaningful authority to correct the policy and/or return it to the body for
further work.

Once ICANN treats public comments with absolutely guaranteed procedural
respect, then folks like Lee will be more inclined to participate
substantively, because they will not feel it is such a likely waste of
their finite time.

ICANN needs to decide that it is time to fix the egg from its end
unilaterally, and then it has a chance of hatching a better chicken in
terms of public response.

I think you do realize this, but you may be hoping that what you've
implemented so far will be enough to engage the public more systematically.
I'm sorry to say that I don't think that will be the case without the sorts
of additional procedural steps I've described.

Of course, it may be that you do not have the unilateral authority to
establish these additional procedural mandates.  In that case, if you want
to achieve your goal of robust public participation, you will need to
appeal to authorities inside ICANN who do have the power to establish and
enforce procedures such as these.

Dan


____________________________________________________________
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