[governance] Reinstate the Vote

[Lee McKnight]

Bertrand, Dan, Suresh,

I agree with your take Bertrand, and suggest further this thread could be seen as a start towards assisting ICANN, through Kieren's efforts,  to refine further its own 'Adminsitrative Procedures Act'-type processes to show that ICANN has taken account of feedback and comment from interested or disinterested parties.  Suggesting it would be more helpful to submit suggestions through a process wheere noone is listening, well I already commented on that.

I had suggested this years back with regard specifically to ICANN's processes or rather lack thereof for gTLD allocations in various presentations to ICANN and the OECD; and ICANN processes are indeed more open and transparent than they were back then.

But as Kieren notes there is still no formal tracking (maybe use the Digital Object Identifier to tag all inputs?) of comments and suggestions, no summary to show that ICANN has reviewed and considered salient points, if there were any, before coming to a decision etc.  

The regulator needs to keep growing up, that's all. Slowly but surely. Kieren, hope you're having fun playing adult to the awkward teenager who does not yet listen ! ; )

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 11/21/07 6:54 AM >>>
Dear Dan and Suresh,

Interesting exchange about the time taken to write. It just illustrates the
difference between a debate (as it dynamically erupts from time to time on
this list) and a contribution to a consultation process where you do not
know whether somebody is going to actually even read it.

This is the core of the discussion and the vicious circle that Kieren was
describing. The whole thing is about *feedback loops*. In a mailing list
discussion, the feedback is immediate, prompting people to reply and
immediately nurture the thread. In public consultations,  people with busy
schedules postpone their contribution until it is too late, often because
they want to "polish" it, feeling it is more formal.

For information, Peter Dengate Thrush, during a workshop we organized in Rio
on "multi-stakeholder policy development" made a very precise comment in
that regard, saying that there is a "need to give feedback on inputs and
give recognition to those who contribute".  I think the notion is sinking
in.

This thread was useful if it encourages ICANN (and Kieren in his function)
to address two elements :
- how to make sure that submissions to consultations are duly taken into
account and addressed in the PDP : this includes drafting summaries of
comments and explicit comments on why suggestions were not retained (yes,
it's additional work but important)
- how to encourage more dynamic and informal contributions, including
potentially taking into account threads on this governance list (short
synthetic papers could be posted on this list by Kieren to start threads
like the one we are participating in now, the comments could be taken into
account in the summary or people could submit summary contributions after
reviewing the exchange, like I try to do here).

Hope this helps moving the ball forward.

Best

Bertrand

On Nov 21, 2007 6:41 AM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> At 10:52 AM +0530 11/21/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >Dan Krimm wrote:
> >
> >> Short answer: I didn't have the time, at the time, due to other
> >> pressing obligations.
> >>
> >> Even though I spend a good deal of time paying attention to IG and
> >> ICANN issues, I don't get paid a farthing for it, and it has to take a
> >back
> >
> >.. and the time difference between ranting on mailing lists and  blogs
> about
> >ICANN, and submitting these as comments to ICANN is ... ?
>
>
> That was then, and this is now.
>
> If I'd had this much disposable time available then, I would have done it
> then.  My schedule is not particularly regular, and I can only do so many
> things simultaneously.  Sometimes I have it, and sometimes I don't.
>
> Real life gets in the way of cyberspace sometimes.  I suppose you're going
> to criticize me for that?
>
> I am skeptical of your implied skepticism.
>
> :-)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")

____________________________________________________________
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