[governance] Fixing an ICANN problem

[George Sadowsky]

Hi, Milton.

Responses are inserted below.  Note that these are my personal 
opinions only.  And, since we will both be in Sharm el Sheikh, we can 
continue this discussion there face to face, if you wish.

At 5:20 PM -0500 11/11/09, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>George:
>Understanding your intention to be helpful, here are my somewhat 
>hasty responses as I prepare to go to IGF:
>
>One IMPORTANT lesson that the Board can draw about "fixing an ICANN 
>problem" is that the more complex and reversible it allows its 
>processes to become the more it will disadvantage noncommercial 
>groups and individual registrants relative to paid, professional 
>indstry lobbyists.

I am sympathetic to the principle.  In real life, however, change 
happens, change both generated within an organization or external to 
the organization, and unintended and unforeseen consequences emerge. 
It would not at all be good policy to deny opening previously closed 
questions solely on the basis that they were previoiusly closed.

>
>In other words, when the Board launches something like the IRT, 
>which second-guesses policy that already emerged from a three-year 
>GNSO policy process, and forces us to chase trademark and registry 
>advocates around the world in a new series of events addressing a 
>policy issue that we thought was already resolved, then the extra 
>effort has to be taken away from something else. We do not have 
>unlimited resources of time, money and labor.
>
>This is indeed an ICANN problem, not an NCUC problem.

It's certainly correct that the IRT was a Board creation, created 
quickly, and the makeup of its composition not as thoughtful of 
balance as it might have been.  Yet given the new gTLDs policy and a 
strong and emerging concern regarding IPR rights, the need for some 
consideration of the issue was (at least to me) apparent.

Perhaps, for a subset of issues, ICANN needs to fashion faster 
processes that are efficient and effective and yet provide balance 
between the affected stakeholders.  Current policy development takes 
a long time at ICANN.

>
>More comments:
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>
>>  Perhaps ICANN's study will motivate these groups to involve
>>  themselves more in the working groups in the future.
>
>No, a study showing a lack of participation will not alter anything. 
>What will alter levels of participation are a) stronger incentives 
>for people to participate, and b) greater capacity on their part, 
>via internal education and organization in the new NCSG, more money, 
>and more people.

Sorry, the study of participation showing low rates will be taken by 
some, rightly or wrongly, as a lack of interest, action, and 
effective representation.  If only for political positioning, it's a 
bad result.

While I agree with your points a) and b), and clearly with the 
positive effect of more money and more people, in the ICANN structure 
NCSG represents millions of registrants who have only one or a few 
domains.  If NCSG is to effectively represent this large constituency 
in the GNSO, it should be obligated to participate in the work of the 
working groups, even if the work of the groups is less relevant to 
individual and non-commercial registrants than it is to the other SOs 
in the GNSO.

>
>>   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.
>
>We are not further removed. We are in the thick of things on issues 
>that matter to our members (free expression, registrant rights, new 
>TLDs, competition, multilingualism)

In the earlier comments, perhaps I should have said "individual 
registrants, the great majority of who are further removed from ICANN 
activities than the great majority of actors in the other 
constituencies ..."

The core NCSG group is clearly are in the thick of the issues you 
mention above, but it's your judgment that elevates these particular 
issues to high priority status.  Are you sure that those priorities 
represent the priorities of your constituency.  How about registrar 
transfer policy, which I think you put at a lower priority level?

>
>But we are not paid industrial lobbyists who stand to gain thousands 
>of millions of dollars if the inter-registrar transfer policy is 
>defined in a certain way or if so-called abuse policies are altered 
>in one way or another.

Quite so, but it's the registrants you represent that benefit from 
involvement in assuring that the transfer policy is as simple and 
useful as possible for them.

>  And we can only cover so many WGs and IRTs and consultations at 
>once. The Board's continuing inability to understand basic, 
>political science 101 features of collective action is always 
>amazing to me. How can anyone expect nonprofit organizations to 
>devote as much time to ICANN WGs as Chuck Gomes, who is a well-paid, 
>professional, full-time employee of VeriSign, whose very existence 
>depends on ICANN contracts and policy?

This argues strongly for increasing the breadth of the NCSG and 
increasing the number of people who collectively have interests in 
the broad spectrum of GNSO concerns, so that participation in the 
working groups will be much more likely.

Further, it's generally not non-profit organizations that devote time 
to such causes, it's dedicated individuals whose organizations permit 
them, either formally or informally, to engage in such activities.  A 
good part of what makes the Internet valuable is the work of current 
and past dedicated volunteers, some of whom are members of this list, 
who contribute in a wide variety of ways.

So perhaps you are implying that volunteers find the ICANN process 
sufficiently unproductive and therefore do not participate.  Yet I 
know volunteers within ICANN who are giving a lot of time to work in 
the ICANN structure and who are uncompensated for it and giving up 
external income to do it.  My sense is that we do not have a critical 
mass of such people, but we have the possibility of achieving that 
critical mass.   Robin has jump-started that process.

>
>We will ALWAYS have to pick our battles and our battlegrounds 
>carefully, and if we don't spend 10 hours a week on a bureuacratic 
>work group defining PDP processes please excuse us, but we do have 
>day jobs.


Regards,

George
____________________________________________________________
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