I would call this a need for Structural Reform. Never mind that I have read a few email exchanges from the early days in my archives recently (which only go back to 1999 and not 20 years, but are fairly complete and in a MySQL database) and it frightens me how little ICANN has changed. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jul 9, 2015, at 01:18, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
I was reminded of a piece of ICANN history the other day and felt it might be useful to share.
When ICANN did its last big self-review in 2000-2002 after an enormous amount of discussion and back-and-forth and high-level review, the community decided there needed to be a dedicated person to make sure that it was easy for people to get involved in ICANN and to be the point person for input from the community.
This was deemed so important that it was written into the bylaws: a similar idea to the 'fundamental bylaws' we are looking at now.
In order to make sure the role was given the proper weight, the role would report direct to the president.
The role of "manager of public participation" was clearly and deliberately described and it had the full backing of the community following a long consultation process. This was December 2002.
It is still in the bylaws - see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#III, section 3.
However, once the pressure was off, ICANN the corporation simply ignored the role.
Someone was hired to do corporate communications because of the United Nations' WSIS process - in February 2004 - and the "participation" element was added to the job title.
Kieran Baker became "General manager, communications and public participation". The "communications" part was 95 per cent of the job.
When Baker left, ICANN hired a VP of corporate affairs and only then hired someone specifically for its bylaws role of "manager of public participation". That was me and it was December 2006 - four years after the community added the role.
On taking that role, it was made plain to me by both senior management and Board members that despite the job description being in the bylaws, things had evolved and the job provided no authority over communication, or participation, or the website.
My point in highlighting this piece of history is that despite:
* Community agreement after a long review * The result of that review being added to the bylaws * A very clear description having been produced
ICANN corporate was able to simply ignore and then repurpose the role.
The "general manager" of public participation became "senior director" and then "senior director of participation and engagement".
There hasn't been anyone in the role since Filiz Yilmaz left in December 2012.
So, when considering what accountability changes need to be made to ICANN in 2015, please don't be fooled into believing that just because:
* You describe things clearly * You reach agreement * You add it to the bylaws
That it will actually happen. If anything, reaching agreement on what needs to be done is literally half the job.
The other half is making sure that it is actually implemented and implemented in the right way while the pressure is still on ICANN.
Otherwise the first time something that you agree on now may end up being addd to ICANN could be 2020. And only then in a way that ICANN corporate wants it to be.
I hope this serves as a useful reminder.
Kieren _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community