[governance] Fixing an ICANN problem

Thu Nov 12 16:29:47 EST 2009

George and all,

  I agree fully.  We've seen/read too much of such nonsense
from Milton and others over the years.

-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>
>Sent: Nov 12, 2009 12:37 PM
>To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
>Subject: RE: [governance] Fixing an ICANN problem
>
>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

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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