[governance] Fixing an ICANN problem

[Mary Wong]

The report that Danny mentions was discussed at a GNSO Council session during the recent ICANN meeting in Seoul. Several factors - such as the overwhelming number of issues currently "in process" within the GNSO, the fact that participation rates necessarily fluctuate depending on the issue(s) in question, and the inaccessibility of much of the information about ICANN policies and processes, were identified as contributing to the lack of participation as well as being a central problem facing newcomers to the ICANN community.
 
The most obvious fix is to lower the "barriers to entry" for newcomers and less experienced participants in ICANN. The various ICANN websites are apparently being revamped with this in mind, and ICANN itself has taken steps to conduct briefings for newer entrants at its meetings. More can, of course, be done and I hope that this list can generate constructive suggestions that can be forwarded to the ICANN Board and staff for consideration.
 
Regarding NCUC participation, George has mentioned (correctly) that NCUC has seen its membership rate climb dramatically in the past year. Many of the new members are also new to ICANN, so much of what I said before regarding accessibility of information (from acronyms to process) has definitely been a problem. There have also been issues relating to remote participation, language and the cost of attending ICANN meetings - all of which must be familiar issues to members of this list in other contexts. Given, then, that the current work groups and issues tend mostly to center on technical and other issues of larger concern to (say) registries and registrars, or on operational issues relating to the massive restructuring of the GNSO, my personal belief is that the lack of participation by NCUC members in these groups is no indication of NCUC's lack of depth, diversity or interest in ICANN and internet governance issues.
 
I'm heartened by the growth in NCUC membership, and in this regard welcome the structural change in the GNSO toward Stakeholder Groups, in which the NCUC has been placed into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCUC members have already expressed interest in working on issues within ICANN relating to (among others) development, education, philanthropy and consumer protection - I am hopeful that this is a positive sign of civil society engagement and diversity of interests within the ICANN community.
 
BTW, although I'm currently one of the NCSG Councillors to the GNSO, these are my personal views.
 
Best,
Mary
 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> 11/11/2009 11:43 AM >>>
Danny,

This is a good observation on your part.  Thanks for bringing it to the list.

As you know, the NCUC is being reformed as a result of the GNSO 
restructuring, and will be somewhat more comprehensive in composition 
in the future.  Also, as recent chair of the NCUC, Robin Gross has 
made significant initial progress in enlarging the existing group.

Perhaps ICANN's study will motivate these groups to involve 
themselves more in the working groups in the future.  This is 
especially important for the NCSG, which represents individual 
registrants who are further removed from ICANN activities than are 
the other constituencies within the GNSO.

(These are my own personal opinions.)

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 5:38 AM -0800 11/11/09, Danny Younger wrote:
>ICANN recently published a study of constituency participation in 
>working group activities -- see 
>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07806.html
>
>The attendance rosters paint a very sad picture -- two 
>constituencies in particular (the ISPs and the NCUC) had no member 
>participation whatsoever in several working groups:
>
>Registration Abuse Policies WG
>Inter-Registrar Transfers WG-A
>Inter-Registrar Transfers WG-B
>Community Communications Coordination WG
>
>These two constituencies also had very limited attendance in other 
>working groups:
>
>Policy Development Process WG
>Post Expiry Domain Name Recovery WG
>
>Not listed in this report was participation data for some of the 
>newer working groups such as the Registrar Accreditation Amendments 
>WG and the Registrant Rights WG that similarly have seen no active 
>participation by members of these two constituencies.
>
>When some constituencies fail to participate at the working group 
>level it is almost inevitable that whatever recommendations emerge 
>will be skewed as a result of imbalanced input -- clearly this is 
>not a healthy situation.
>
>On this list are many veterans of the ICANN process.  What 
>suggestions might you offer to improve this overall situation?
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091111/2f146afa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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