[governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

[Dan Krimm]

Kieren,

I understand that you may take criticisms of ICANN's public participation
policy as a personal attack.  In fact it isn't intended that way, unless
you have real authority and resources to do everything you'd want to do in
that regard.  I'm really placing blame further up the ladder and assuming
you are not fully resourced or authorized to do a proper job.  I don't know
you from Adam other than from a few emails here and there, so this cannot
be personal.  It's institutional.

The very comment quoted at the start below doesn't seem "rude" to me,
especially since you just replied that you agree.  It is a fact that you
agree that there is a lack of effective promotion of open-comment periods
at ICANN.  Let's just start there, and then see what might be done to
address it.

I don't know if you feel you have to defend ICANN's public participation
strategy in order to defend your record to ICANN internally or something.
In any case, your responses show that what is at issue here is not a matter
of "correctness" or "incorrectness" but rather a matter of judgment as to
what is genuinely effective or not, and what is a sufficient effort in
order to make a substantive claim of genuine public participation in
policy-making.

Comments interspersed below.



At 12:48 AM +0100 9/7/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> One rather gaping hole in the online public comment process is the lack of
>> effective promotion of open-comment periods.
>
>
>I agree. Although I wouldn't have phrased it quite so rudely.

Put on your armor and address the facts.  Whatever frustration I may be
expressing is at ICANN not at you.



>--------------------------------------------
>
>> There is little visibility of this platform among the general public
>
>The public comment page has a link on every page on the ICANN website.

Obviously that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about visibility
in public discourse separate from ICANN's own web platform.



 ... If you type
>"icann public comment" into Google you will be taken directly to the page.
>
>The general public aren't really interested in ICANN's work, sadly.

If you don't know to type-in "icann public comment" into Google, why would
anyone even know or think to do so?  It takes a separate promotional
channel to get the word out generally, so that "general people" have even
the first reason to explore in the first place.



>------------------------------------------------
>> the Keep The Core Neutral campaign generated roughly 50 comments out
>> of a total of roughly 80
>
>You used a Web form with pre-prepared text and a send button aimed it at a
>particular ICANN email address. Some people typed in the wrong email address
>in your form; others failed to respond to a confirmation email sent by ICANN
>in order to deal with an enormous spam problem.

Some of them never received the confirmation email because it got caught in
their own spam filters.  Perhaps all of them.  Can you confirm any bounces
indicating mistyped email addresses?  I emailed all of them directly (and
individually) myself, and I didn't get any bounces.  I can supply you with
the addresses, if you like.


>Personally, I would prefer that complex policy decisions covering the future
>expansion of the Internet were dealt with through reason and logic rather
>than whoever manages to muster the largest number of copycat statements.

If a "copycat" statement is formulated rationally and logically, and
someone decides to sign on to it, why is that not valid?  There is a "long
tail" of constituent voice in any political process, and this is simply a
way to capture that full distribution of constituent preference, especially
when people have tie/resource limits to such participation.

It sounds as if you are arguing for an elitist stance with regard to public
participation, though I hope I am mistaken.  Embrace anyone, so long as
they can invest the resources to participate on a long-term basis, and
anyone who cannot invest that time or only found out about it at the last
minute is rejected from the process?



>Nonethelesss, they appeared on the page, they have appeared in a
>summary/analysis of comments that I need to stick up very soon, and that
>summary will be given to the appropriate council to review as part of its
>decision-making process.

This is a typical structure used by organizations like MoveOn.org and
FreePress.net and a myriad of other constituency-mobilization campaigns to
get comments to elected representatives, etc.  Some people who care about
the issue don't have time to formulate their own words, but they should not
be precluded from having a voice in the process if they agree with what
others have pre-digested.  ICANN may choose to weight those comments
differently from others, but ICANN should certainly not weight them to zero.

This was the first attempt to mobilize a broad public participation in
ICANN policy-input process.  Our petition has over 250 signatures (about
100 of them organizations, the rest individuals).  Compare that with
SaveTheInternet's 1.6 million to support net neutrality.  There's some head
room here, still.



>----------------------------------------------
>> Real human beings need to pick up the phone and/or email and pro
>> actively contact tech policy communities
>
>ICANN already does this. It's just that you may not have received a call. It
>is also not as effective as we thought it would be (less than 1 in 10
>success rate on even personal contact). But we're expanding it nonetheless.

Well, then, that's good news.  There's probably lots of room for expansion,
and I hope you get the full resources and authority to do it properly.



>----------------------------------------------
>> Who are you targeting for your newsletter?
>
>Anyone that signs up (http://www.icann.org/magazine/;
>http://www.icann.org/newsletter/). The magazine has in one month gone from 0
>people to just under 1,000. I think there are 4,000 people signed up to the
>news alerts.

That's not "targeting" -- I'm talking about pro-active communications to
get people to subscribe.  People who are not already plugged into ICANN
communications channels of some sort.

And frankly, I'm plugged into *some* ICANN channels, but apparently not
into that one.  I didn't even know there was a newsletter until you
mentioned it -- I don't have time to go hunting around the ICANN web site
for stuff that I don't even know is there.  I'm busy with important things,
like most other members of the general public.

There's a missing link here, and that's the point I'm trying to make.  In
order for people to hear your tree falling in the forest, you first have to
bring their bodies to the forest.



>-----------------------------------------------
>> Who else are you partnering with to build visibility?
>
>This is just management nonsense. But the answer is: two of the biggest
>company institutes in the world.

Very nice, I hope they are doing something valuable for you.  Apparently
not enough just yet.  (Aside: what the heck is a "company institute"
anyway?  Some kind of PR firm?  That's new jargon to me.)



>-------------------------------------------------
>> Can you clarify exactly what is done with public comments and
>> exactly how they can affect policy-making at ICANN?
>
>Yes. The information you are looking for is here -
>http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-23jun07.h
>tm#consul.

Interesting item under transparency:  "Explain how the input will be used"
-- so, where is this explanation, for example, in the context of new gTLD
policy?  How will *that* input be used?  We know the comments will be
summarized for the GNSO Council meeting today (oops, I hope you didn't miss
that deadline -- they were supposed to be voting on this policy at that
meeting), but how will (or did) the Council incorporate them into its
deliberations and decisions?


 This new consultation framework was launched (along with a range
>of other frameworks covering translation, information disclosure, code of
>conduct, accountability, dispute resolution and various others) at a public
>session in San Juan that was also available online, webcast and audiocast,
>and had its own chatroom.
>
>A comment period on them was opened at the end of June which was announced
>on the front page of the ICANN website and on the ICANN blog. It closed on
>31 August. I don't see your name there anywhere.

I had no idea this consultation was happening, of course.  I guess I didn't
attend that session in San Juan (I had a full schedule as it was, and
didn't pay much attention to things I didn't already have to deal with like
Whois WG and gTLD workshop and GNSO and NCUC meetings, etc.).  Had I known
it, I may have participated.  Oops, too late.  I wonder who knew about
this?  Can't have been very many.  Again, if I don't know it's happening,
how can I allocate time to look for it?  Do you think that even ICANN
meeting attendees can be aware and participate in everything going on in an
ICANN meeting?  You'd have to have five clones working full-time.

Interesting comments from a few people at San Juan I talked to: even though
they'd been involved internally with ICANN for several years, they still
"didn't know what is going on at ICANN."  This is from insider veterans who
participate not only in public comments but in constituencies and advisory
committees and task forces and working groups.

I don't check the ICANN front page on any regular basis, and I haven't had
time for the blog either.  Again, even this doesn't bring the bodies to the
forest.  It's not realistic.



>----------------------------------------------------
>> (a) who knows to participate, and (b) what effect will participation have?
>
>
>Who knows to participate in anything? ICANN needs to improve its website to
>lead people through that I do agree with. The website is being redesigned,
>and we have a team of journalists about to start work on rewriting large
>sections of the ICANN website to make it more accessible and easier to
>understand.

Well, great, then that sounds like a positive step.  But redesigning the
web site isn't enough in itself.  Independent pro-active outreach is
ineliminable if you expect to bring the bodies to the forest.



>What effect will participation have? Well, it depends on the quality of the
>participation and whether people can persuade the Internet community of
>their point. At its best, it can change the way the Internet works. At the
>other end you'll find people making endless, inaccurate statements without
>any basis in fact and loosely tied around a vague conspiracy...

Who exactly do you define as "the Internet community"?  It isn't "ICANN
insiders" is it?  My point here wasn't about final outcome so much as it
was about formal internal process.  How will ICANN's policy-making process
use the public comments on the comment forum, and what is the
internal/structural mechanism of that incorporation.  This kind of thing is
necessary in order to provide real transparency into a policy-making
process.  How do the nuts and bolts work, and how influential are these
comments, really.  Does ICANN take them seriously, and if so, how can that
statement be substantiated above and beyond a mere unstructured claim?

The vague principles linked to above do not explain these details.  I
already saw them, and they did not answer my question then, and they still
don't now.



>--------------------------------------------------
>> prime the public beforehand to understand the issues as they are
>> being developed, well before they are made available to public comments
>
>
>True in theory. In reality, ICANN has public comment periods at each step of
>development so you can not only see the process develop but also affect it
>at several points along the line.
>
>ICANN has agreed to follow OECD guidelines in large future consultations.
>That has as a key component outreach to people after an initial statement is
>produced.

I'm not familiar with those OECD guidelines, but it sounds like a start.
It may not be a finish, though.



>-------------------------------------------------
>> The effort it takes to track an issue through the arcane policy
>> process at ICANN is considerable,
>
>Or, alternatively, you could click on the simple webpage set up for just
>that purpose: http://www.icann.org/processes/

You can't be serious here.  Even knowing the road map doesn't remove the
task of digesting the entire raw contents of outputs.  I'm not talking
about knowing what the steps and schedules are, I'm talking about tracking
the substance of what happens in detail.  One-pager-type summaries, that
sort of thing.

The general public doesn't have time to wade through the mountain of
details that the insiders have to wade through.  Unless you're counting on
independent journalists to do that (doesn't seem too likely these days,
given the generally de-resourced state of "professional" journalism), again
there's a missing link here.



>-------------------------------------------------
>
>> Putting up a web site does not constitute promotion.
>
>No. That is why we have a magazine, RSS feeds, news alerts, regional
>managers, three meetings a year, press releases, outreach events, a blog,
>constant appearances by staff at conferences across the world, and me
>popping up on mailing lists like this.

And what audience do you reach with all of these efforts?  Can you quantify
it?  It's a nice-sounding list, but if the numbers are small it doesn't
necessarily add up to much.  And if it is aimed only at a techie elite,
then the general public is not likely to hear about it.

Just how wide-ranging is the "public" to which you appeal?



>--------------------------------------------
>> ICANN is entirely under the radar in the realm of general public awareness
>
>Yes it is. That is because it is a body that deals with issues that very few
>people actually care about. I know this because I have written about domain
>names and the Internet for a very large range of newspapers and magazines
>for eight years. News editors aren't interested because people aren't
>interested. Some are though. I like these people, in general.

If everything that people say in connection to these issues is phrased in
terms that do not connect with general public interests then it is
understandable that the general public will not engage.  They don't even
understand because you haven't explained it to them in a way that they can
understand.

The weak spot here is understanding that the general public can be
profoundly affected by some of the policies discussed at ICANN, and if that
connection is not made in the communications you'll have (again) a missing
link.

When we're dealing with issues like personal privacy, freedom of expression
and so forth, those connections need to be made explicitly in order to
engage the general public.  Keep to techie talk and jargony language and
you'll be systematically driving away huge swaths of the population that
would otherwise start to care quite a bit.

It would be unwise to therefore assume that they are not "interested" --
more properly they are not well informed.



>----------------------------------------------
>> If ICANN opens a web site in the vastness of the Internet and no
>> one comes to view it, does it create a communication channel?
>
>But they do come to view it. Tens of thousands of people every day. You
>should try it - you might find some of the answers you are looking for.

Tens of thousands out of the billions of Internet users (i.e., "the
Internet community").  Oh, that's huge.  I'm sure they're all different
individuals, no repeat visitors from day to day...  Do you know your
monthly cume?  Does it even get into six digits?  What about annual reach?

And, how many pages does the typical visitor view?  I'm sure they cover the
whole site map, of course...  Not like they come to one or two or maybe
five or six pages and then they're gone.  I'm sure they see everything you
want them to see even if they're not explicitly looking for it.

C'mon, Kieren.  I've worked at enterprise level web services, I even helped
launch Consumer Reports Online.  CRO works because it had an existing
subscriber base and constituent audience from decades of prior existence
and branding.  We didn't just put up a web site and expect people to find
it on their own.  We had a *ton* of other vehicles that we basically
advertised in (the print magazine, the other print publications, 10 years'
worth of other electronic media marketing, PR outreach, etc., etc.).


Look, you're starting with an incomplete and imperfect setup, and I
acknowledge that.  I don't expect you personally to do miracles
immediately.  There's a *lot* of work to do, and frankly it must be
tremendously daunting (if not, then there's something wrong in the picture).

But please, don't take your eyes off the prize!

And if you really disparage public mobilization campaigns like KTCN, then
you have no business being in charge of public input.  We brought as many
public comments to ICANN for one topic as a dozen others combined.  Why?
Because in this case ICANN is threatening to address issues of a very
general public policy nature in ways that are (and should be) alarming to
the general public.  Precedents could be set here that have long-standing
endurance.

To discount that input would be unwise if what you're really trying to do
is understand what the general public cares about and incorporate it
meaningfully into ICANN policy-making.

To design a public comment process that is for insider techies only would
do a disservice to the public interest as it concerns ICANN policy that
could profoundly affect the general public.

This whole discussion is directly at the interface between "Internet
governance" and "public governance" -- where all the conceptual
disagreements are exploding right now.  That's why people who understand it
care about it.  If you haven't noticed, I'm *passionate" about these
issues, myself, and I care about making/keeping the Internet a force for
genuine bottom-up empowerment in societies across the globe.

ICANN policy has systematically reached into realms of fundamentally
general public interest.  ICANN is not just for techies any more, due to
its own ambitions to address matters of general public policy.  If ICANN
doesn't want to involve the general public, then it should stop trying to
make policy of a general public nature.

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