[governance] Reinstate the Vote

[Kieren McCarthy]

I understand where you're coming from Danny. But you asked me what the best
method was and that's the answer.

What you are assuming, wrongly in my view, is that participation within
those structures won't work. I don't agree. I think it will work. Moreover
what I am saying is that *unless* people participate in those structures,
there won't be change along the lines you suggested.

If you have other suggestions that could practically work please throw them
in. 

The problem with your suggestion of writing letters to the chairman is that
the chairman will then ask: "So how do we fix this?" and we end up in the
exact same place that we are now.

Now if you could present a clear case as to why such a change would be in
ICANN's overall interests AND provide a number of suggested routes for
getting there, then I think you'd find he would start looking at it
seriously. If that whole case was to come from within the ICANN structure,
it would add further weight.

But to send a letter saying "this isn't right" and offering no solution is
not going to achieve much.

Just my two cents.

I should also say that if people do participate in ICANN's processes they
not only benefit from engagement with others but also gain the advantages
that come with participation, one of which is that I would consider it my
duty to make sure that that participation was given the appropriate
consideration.




Kieren





-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:53 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] Reinstate the Vote

Kieren,

Thanks for the response.  If I may summarize your
recommendations with regard to the process by which
representational issues may be addressed...

(1)  You recommend that members of the public
concerned with this issue should submit their comments
to two entities that have either commenced or will
soon commence an ICANN Structural/Operational Review
Process; namely the Nominating Committee Review Group
managed by InterIsle Consulting and the At-Large
Advisory Committee Review Group that still hasn't been
selected.  These two groups (per the ICANN bylaws) are
theoretically "independent of the organization under
review". 

With regard to the first group that reviewed the ICANN
College of Cardinals (the Nominating Committee), I see
that it was assisted by a working group comprised
exclusively of current and former board members: 
Alejandro Pisanty, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Njeri Rionge,
Mouhamet Diop, Jonathan Cohen and Steve Goldstein.
Additionally, the organization charged with conducting
the review counts as one its its primary consultants
former board member Lyman Chapin -- nice way to handle
the concept of "independent" review; 

Further, this set of reviewers chose to only interview
47 people (53% of these people just happened to be
from the USA, and 64% were either ICANN board members,
members of ICANN Staff or former Nominating Committee
members).  

It appears that InterIsle had no particular interest
in casting a wider net, and that they arrived at
recommendations that continue to promote secrecy as
the modus operandi of choice.  Feel free to contrast
that approach with the fully open and transparent
methodology employed by the GNSO in its process to
elect board directors.

And yet for some reason you deem it important for us
to express our views to this particular group whose
recommendations (the product of extensive discussions
with ICANN Staff and Board) remain the antithesis of
openness and transparency.  Go figure.  

(2) Next you would like us to send through comments to
a group that will at some point evaluate the
non-performance of the ALAC.  Nevermind the fact that
this review is already two years overdue and that it
took a full year even after the LSE report was made
public to get the Board Governance Committee to
produce a first set of recommendations -- basically
you are saying that given the current timetable
perhaps in another two years ICANN will get around to
producing some cosmetic revisions to the ALAC model
and that we are advised to patiently wait for a
representative opportunity in some distant future.

More to the point, you are actually recommending that
in order to advocate for the principle of
representation we should now join a group (ALAC and
its RALOs) that has never once in the last five years
shown any interest in fighting for representative
rights for their own community -- Thanks, but that
kind of useless assistance we don't need.

Sorry, but making the ICANN model work will require a
bit more than what you have recommended -- it will
require ICANN to actually respect the White Paper
priciple of "representation" instead of just
continuing to give it lip service and short shrift.

The current process that you have outlined to address
major and ongoing public concerns is deficient.  It's
clear, and I thank you for that, but it's still
deficient as it fails to properly address the
legitimate need for full multistakeholder
representation within ICANN.

My advice (for what it's worth) to list participants: 
send your letters of concern directly to the new ICANN
Chairman of the Board.  At the very least, we'll soon
see if he's listening.


 
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. 
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 

____________________________________________________________
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