[governance] Fixing an ICANN problem

[George Sadowsky]

I've tried to make a set of constructive comments about the NCUC and 
its relationship to ICANN.  According to Milton's post, which is 
tinged with anger, bitterness and frustration, I am being unrealistic 
and have failed.

I feel misinterpreted and I strongly disagree, but this conversation 
is going nowhere except, like many others, in the direction of 
acrimony and ad hominem attacks.  That's not productive; let's end it 
here.

George

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



At 12:14 PM -0500 11/12/09, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>  > -----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