Once again, Evan's analysis is spot on; we know the problems and all agree on the multiple missed opportunities. I will differ some on the solution. Maybe I'm a sucker for punishment. And I'm sure we were only intended to be bit players. But I'm say words should indict behaviour. I think there is still an opening to change what might've been a charade into laudable action. Yes, I think Intents #1 & #2 as Evan document are still worthy of support. Yes, results to date are trending poor. So let's knock heads together, engage and find a way to hold ICANN's feet to the fire. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I just posted this on the wiki:
Gone are the days when ICANN would sit back, like the olympics, and be courted by governments wanting to demonstrate their geek cred. So if ICANN gets to pick the locations, it's sensible to have a transparent rationale for its choices. Not sure I agree with this particular process, but it's a useful step.
As ICANN is looking to hold its meetings at convention centres (with nearby hotels) rather than within the hotels themselves, the number of cities capable of accommodating meetings is still rather high (and indeed this was the model used in Brussels and Nairobi). So that isn't a significantly limiting factor.
So far, the intent of having the meetings in different cities appeared to be five-fold:
1. Appear to the public to be globally engaged, to counter ICANN's legal status as a California corporation 2. Engage the local community in ICANN issues 3. Expose ICANN and its usual stakeholders to a global diversity of needs and sensitivities 4. Be less expensive to attend (at least to the one-in-five meetings in your region) 5. Allow host cities and/or governments to show off their Internet savvy to the world
So let's examine how well these are working:
*Appear to the public to be globally engaged:* As a public relations tactic the current roadshow presents an image of a globally active ICANN. Yet the reality is that ICANN meetings are, by and large, the same rich-world group of vested interests and lawyers following ICANN around wherever it goes. And the results of all these years of travel are ICANN policies that still act as if the global south doesn't exist. So maybe the issue here is that nobody's being fooled anymore, so perhaps ICANN should drop its pretences.
*Engage the local community: *I guess I just don't see it. A handful of local NGOs and governments attend shows who otherwise wouldn't participate, but the reality is that this effect is far more claimed than realized. How many ALSs have joined as a direct result of an organization attending a local ICANN meeting? Shock exposure of the local community to ICANN meetings dominated by experienced, aggressive players and full of technical jargon is not what I'd consider an optimal form of outreach. If ICANN would budget for preparatory meetings to engage communities in advance, this might be worthwhile. But this is not happening. So what we have is an expensive charade.
*Expose ICANN participants to diverse needs and sensitivities*: Nice intent, no proof that there's anything to this outside of delegates getting a taste of local food (and whatever culture they can glean from the Gala). And maybe some local comments injected into the Public Forum (which, like most other comments at the forum, are for the speakers' benefit and not the audience's).
*Be less expensive to attend* Nope. For every person who saves money by going to Durban or Cartagena, a hundred more are paying double or triple what it would cost to go to a global hub city. In terms of the sheer practicality, it might actually be less expensive to have an AFRALO general assembly in Paris than in the region (ditto for LACRALO and Miami) – but that's the fault of the travel industry, not ICANN.
*Allow hosts to show off their Internet savvy*: I'd say that pool is pretty well exhausted. ICANN now struggles just to find hosts willing to bear the costs of the Gala. Nobody needs ICANN anymore for publicity; indeed, given the noise in WCIT and elsewhere, it seems that ICANN may be actively shunned by some of the very places where it *should* be for the purposes listed above (Moscow, for instance). Anyway... this is just food for thought as we determine a response.