[governance] Fixing an ICANN problem

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> 
> 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.

Then don't complain that noncommercial and unpaid individuals and activists can't keep up. You can't have it both ways. Either stabilize your processes and make them less discretionary, complex and whimsical, or accept the fact that no one except a full-time paid lobbyist like Chuck Gomes or Marilyn Cade can keep up with them all. 

> 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.

I've just explained to you why the "lack of interest, action and effective representation" interpretation is wrong. I hope you agree. However, some of us would openly admit to a total lack of interest in some of the more bureaucratic GNSO WGs, and would strongly assert that we would be doing our constituency a disservice by devoting hours of work to that stuff. 

> 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

Ah, please tell me George, how you plan to enforce this "obligation?" When nonprofits and individuals join NCUC, they are not being conscripted into an army subject to military command. If people are not motivated or capable of participating, they don't participate. Many a time we have delegated someone to these WGs only to learn that they dropped out or didn't effectively participate, either because they got suddenly busy at their real work/life, or because they got weary of hearing the same chorus and same obstructionist tactics from certain business groups that I won't name here. Please get a grip on the reality of the situation. There are no human resources out there for us or you to command.

> 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.  

Yes, I am quite sure. 

Anyone in NCUC can get involved in any WG they want. Surely you are familiar with the common pattern in volunteer organizations. For every 100 members, there are 2-10 people who can be reliably counteed on to do any work. Some tasks motivated the members, others don't. The harder and more specialized and narrow  the work is, the lower that ratio gets. This is just common sense. 

> How about registrar
> transfer policy, which I think you put at a lower priority level?

It is an important issue, but few people have the expertise to contend with this issue on the same level as a registry or registrar whose full time job it is. I have personally begged three different major consumer organizations to get involved in these WGs. None of them prioritized it. They have bigger fish to fry: net neutrality, wireless spectrum policy, privacy in SNS sites, etc. etc. etc.

If you believe that there are hundreds or even dozens of individual registrants clamoring to get into the inter-registrar transfers WG and that NCUC is somehow keeping them out, please produce a list of names. I am sure Robin, the current chair, and everyone else in NCSG will welcome them with open arms. 

> 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.

This whole ICANN religion that somehow the people who participate "represent" millions of others is completely false. But that's a more extended conversation for another day. 

You don't "represent" anyone nor do I, fundamentally. We get involved because we know things about the Internet and have beliefs about how policy should go. That's it.

ICANN's participatory organs represent the people who are interested and capable enough to get involved in them. Full stop. 

> 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.

You speak of "increasing the breadth" as if some command could be issued and suddenly millions of people with loads of free time on their hands will immediately appear and be sorted into work tasks. Sure, there is some room for better informing larger numbers of people, but basically ICANN attracts the people who have a direct and immediate interest in its activities and fails to inspire the billions who don't. 

> 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.

Yes, indeed. You've got it. It's basically motivated individuals. You cannot command them to appear, and if they don't appear, you can't blame the people who are already involved for the lack of interest in what ICANN does. 

> 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

You are talking now to one of those dedicated individuals, someone who has done more than his share of creating and sustaining the platform around which noncommercial orgs and individuals can participate.

As one of those dedicated individuals, I ask you: what is your message to me? What are you trying to tell me? 

Give me a practical action item. 

And make sure it is NOT "make millions of people with hundreds of more important things in their lives devote 30 hours a week to ICANN" because that's not going to happen.

--MM
____________________________________________________________
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