Towards a comment on evolving the multistakeholder model at ICANN
Colleagues, in last Wednesday's CPWG call, I offered the following suggestions with respect to the comment on evolving the multistakeholder model: I grouped all 21 issues presented to us on the previous call inside 4 categories -- explicitly recognizing that some of these things fit into various categories. 1. Structural issues -- Wholistic view (20); Complexity (2); Roles and responsibilities (15); Terms (21); Accountability (11);Transparency (12) 2. Process issues -- Precision in scoping (10); Prioritization (4); Efficient use of resources (16); Work processes (19); Costs (13); Consensus (9); Timing (1) 3. Participation issues -- Demographics (5); Recruitment (6); Representativeness (7); Inclusiveness (8); Volunteer burnout (17) 4. Intergroup relations -- Cultural issues (13); Trust (14); Silos/tribalism (18) I then suggested that we take each category and present our thoughts on how we can address these issues -- paying attention to the fact that addressing one group of issues will impact issues in other groups. This way of proceeding seemed to meet the approval of those who were on the call. In continuation, during the call, we focussed on the "low hanging fruit" here -- namely category 4: Intergroup relations -- i.e the perceived lack of trust, tribalism and silos, etc. which can result in stalled processes that can go on forever and eventually lead nowhere or sometimes result in time consuming and unproductive negative interactions between groups and/or individuals. Here are some suggestions offered for potential recommendations on how this group of issues might be addressed: – that training in multistakeholder processes be an important part of onboarding activities – that consensus be clearly defined and that all parties to a policy process commit to the the goal of achieving consensus – that a culture of trust be supported by consequences for publicly disparaging other groups – a commitment by ICANN to fully address the resource needs (both financial and human resources) of volunteer groups working in the SO/AC communities I have not yet had an opportunity to go back to the recording of the call so not all suggestions are reflected here. However, in the interests of moving the process along (deadline June 4), please use the suggestions offered here to begin a discussion on how we should respond to this call for comments. Thank you Marita
Hi Marita, I apologize for not making the call. I am very interested in this topic, but even more interested in not having my time wasted. As has been expressed before, I am extremely skeptical that the status quo can be disrupted purely from the inside. There have been quite a few exercises of this kind before, even high profile moves such as the ATRT and independence from the US government have been tortuous but led to little real change in the way decisions are made. I could even make the case that the IANA transition has worsened the status of stakeholders outside the compact of domain buyers and domain sellers. What is the assurance (or even broad confidence) that the results of any new work would be heeded? What are the consequences to ICANN of yet again ignoring the calls to distribute power more broadly or address its many fundamental breeches of public trust? There are a few key components of ICANN governance that, so long as they exist, render all talk of real change aspirational at best. - So long as GNSO consensus policy binds the ICANN Board, the rest of us are essentially powerless. - So long as ICANN's revenue comes solely from domain acquisition, it is by definition in a conflict of interest in setting domain policy. - So long as domain sellers sit on both sides of the negotiating table in development of the RAA and other instruments of domain regulation, ICANN cannot be trusted to act impartially. - So long ICANN is accountable to nobody but its core conflicted community, it will successfully resist change. "Empowered" my eye. ALAC has diligently participated in multiple previous "fix the MSM" efforts which have yielded no significant result. Two white papers produced by ALAC members were ignored without so much as acknowledgement of their existence. In this context, exactly how serious is this latest iteration? A new turnover of ALAC members provides fresh hope and maybe even new insights, but lack of institutional memory simply indicates new iterations of old efforts that have proven to fail. We hit the most solid of walls whenever intention tries to turn to execution. This just feels so much like ICANN is Lucy and ALAC is Charlie Brown. Maybe if we try kicking the football again, this time it will work..... What's different this time? - Evan
+1. CW
On 18 May 2019, at 19:58, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Marita,
I apologize for not making the call. I am very interested in this topic, but even more interested in not having my time wasted.
As has been expressed before, I am extremely skeptical that the status quo can be disrupted purely from the inside. There have been quite a few exercises of this kind before, even high profile moves such as the ATRT and independence from the US government have been tortuous but led to little real change in the way decisions are made. I could even make the case that the IANA transition has worsened the status of stakeholders outside the compact of domain buyers and domain sellers. What is the assurance (or even broad confidence) that the results of any new work would be heeded? What are the consequences to ICANN of yet again ignoring the calls to distribute power more broadly or address its many fundamental breaches of public trust?
There are a few key components of ICANN governance that, so long as they exist, render all talk of real change aspirational at best. So long as GNSO consensus policy binds the ICANN Board, the rest of us are essentially powerless. So long as ICANN's revenue comes solely from domain acquisition, it is by definition in a conflict of interest in setting domain policy. So long as domain sellers sit on both sides of the negotiating table in development of the RAA and other instruments of domain regulation, ICANN cannot be trusted to act impartially. So long ICANN is accountable to nobody but its core conflicted community, it will successfully resist change. "Empowered" my eye. ALAC has diligently participated in multiple previous "fix the MSM" efforts which have yielded no significant result. Two white papers produced by ALAC members were ignored without so much as acknowledgement of their existence. In this context, exactly how serious is this latest iteration? A new turnover of ALAC members provides fresh hope and maybe even new insights, but lack of institutional memory simply indicates new iterations of old efforts that have proven to fail. We hit the most solid of walls whenever intention tries to turn to execution.
This just feels so much like ICANN is Lucy and ALAC is Charlie Brown. Maybe if we try kicking the football again, this time it will work.....
What's different this time?
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
Hi Evan. As usual, your message captures my attention. Needless to say, I share your analysis - as is often the case - but disagree on the conclusions. But let me first digress, and talk about something else. You know that we will have in a week from now elections for the European Parliament. Quite a few people think that the European Union has lost the initial drive to build something different and has become sclerotised and bureaucratic, managing an oversize budget only to favour the interests of a few stakeholder groups and forgetting the ordinary people, and are fighting to change the way things are going. In the last few years, my personal impression is that, although everybody claims that Europe has to be improved, the two alternatives that have emerged are "continue as usual" or "abandon the game" (exiting either the Euro or the Union altogether). I am still one that believes that Europe needs to be changed. It does take time, the current way that politics is managed and amplified by media does not help, the self-serving reluctance to change and the weakness of the review mechanisms are pushing against, but even if we do not reach tangible results our example can inspire future generations to take the flag and go further. Now please replace “Europe” with “ICANN” and read the whole thing over again and you will have my point of view on the topic you raise. Cheers, Roberto On 18.05.2019, at 19:58, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Hi Marita, I apologize for not making the call. I am very interested in this topic, but even more interested in not having my time wasted. As has been expressed before, I am extremely skeptical that the status quo can be disrupted purely from the inside. There have been quite a few exercises of this kind before, even high profile moves such as the ATRT and independence from the US government have been tortuous but led to little real change in the way decisions are made. I could even make the case that the IANA transition has worsened the status of stakeholders outside the compact of domain buyers and domain sellers. What is the assurance (or even broad confidence) that the results of any new work would be heeded? What are the consequences to ICANN of yet again ignoring the calls to distribute power more broadly or address its many fundamental breeches of public trust? There are a few key components of ICANN governance that, so long as they exist, render all talk of real change aspirational at best. * So long as GNSO consensus policy binds the ICANN Board, the rest of us are essentially powerless. * So long as ICANN's revenue comes solely from domain acquisition, it is by definition in a conflict of interest in setting domain policy. * So long as domain sellers sit on both sides of the negotiating table in development of the RAA and other instruments of domain regulation, ICANN cannot be trusted to act impartially. * So long ICANN is accountable to nobody but its core conflicted community, it will successfully resist change. "Empowered" my eye. ALAC has diligently participated in multiple previous "fix the MSM" efforts which have yielded no significant result. Two white papers produced by ALAC members were ignored without so much as acknowledgement of their existence. In this context, exactly how serious is this latest iteration? A new turnover of ALAC members provides fresh hope and maybe even new insights, but lack of institutional memory simply indicates new iterations of old efforts that have proven to fail. We hit the most solid of walls whenever intention tries to turn to execution. This just feels so much like ICANN is Lucy and ALAC is Charlie Brown. Maybe if we try kicking the football again, this time it will work..... What's different this time? - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
Hi Roberto, Needless to say, I share your analysis - as is often the case - but
disagree on the conclusions.
I'm not sure what conclusions you disagree with. I am responding to a request for help with "I'm interested in the topic but sceptical that the effort spent on such effort will yield any useful result". I am asking the ALAC leadership for *any* evidence - more than hope - that this effort may yield results more useful or meaningful than previous ones. How about ALAC coming up with a clear vision of what it thinks ICANN ought to be, and let that vision guide its strategies and tactics going forward? I remind that ALAC is not bound by the timing of other projects and has the mandate to advise the Board of ICANN on any issue at any time. Yet here we are once again, reacting to the agenda of others rather than take our own initiative. Cheers, - Evan
+1. Your analysis may not be impeached sah! As you rightly established, the structural framework in which the system operates is the key issue. And it is incontestable that current structure places the user view at the fringe. What we're seeing here is the makings of another effort at tweaking, a tuck here, and a cinch there, objective being to eke out another morsel of effect. I did not make the call on account I was away earning a living. But even as I haven't heard the recording, I am so confident that this outline by Marita evokes - maybe an alleged Yogi Berra saying typifies it best - 'de ja vu all over again'. Let her roll along, I'd say. Maybe, just maybe, the nth time is the charm. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:59 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Marita,
I apologize for not making the call. I am very interested in this topic, but even more interested in not having my time wasted.
As has been expressed before, I am extremely skeptical that the status quo can be disrupted purely from the inside. There have been quite a few exercises of this kind before, even high profile moves such as the ATRT and independence from the US government have been tortuous but led to little real change in the way decisions are made. I could even make the case that the IANA transition has worsened the status of stakeholders outside the compact of domain buyers and domain sellers. What is the assurance (or even broad confidence) that the results of any new work would be heeded? What are the consequences to ICANN of yet again ignoring the calls to distribute power more broadly or address its many fundamental breeches of public trust?
There are a few key components of ICANN governance that, so long as they exist, render all talk of real change aspirational at best.
- So long as GNSO consensus policy binds the ICANN Board, the rest of us are essentially powerless. - So long as ICANN's revenue comes solely from domain acquisition, it is by definition in a conflict of interest in setting domain policy. - So long as domain sellers sit on both sides of the negotiating table in development of the RAA and other instruments of domain regulation, ICANN cannot be trusted to act impartially. - So long ICANN is accountable to nobody but its core conflicted community, it will successfully resist change. "Empowered" my eye.
ALAC has diligently participated in multiple previous "fix the MSM" efforts which have yielded no significant result. Two white papers produced by ALAC members were ignored without so much as acknowledgement of their existence. In this context, exactly how serious is this latest iteration? A new turnover of ALAC members provides fresh hope and maybe even new insights, but lack of institutional memory simply indicates new iterations of old efforts that have proven to fail. We hit the most solid of walls whenever intention tries to turn to execution.
This just feels so much like ICANN is Lucy and ALAC is Charlie Brown. Maybe if we try kicking the football again, this time it will work.....
What's different this time?
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
participants (5)
-
Carlton Samuels -
cw＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Evan Leibovitch -
Marita Moll -
Roberto Gaetano