Dear ATRT2,
Please find below (and attached) my input on some of the questions which
you have posed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
* *
*1. The ATRT2 is seeking to engage an Independent Expert to assess whether
the GNSO PDP process is effective for developing gTLD policy within ICANN’s
multi-stakeholder environment. In your view, is the GNSO PDP working well,
and if not, what needs to be done?
*
*
*
The GNSO PDP allows for At-Large participation where the At-Large is
usually the sole voice representing the interests of Internet users against
those with vested interests and financial stakes in PDP outcomes. At-Large
representatives face difficulty competing with those with vested interests,
who are typically more than well represented in ICANN’s policy development
processes and better resourced in terms of policy research/analysis/impact
in their own respective capacities and organizations.
*
*
*Two examples of PDPs where contracted parties over-powered user
representatives:*
a) Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR); and
b) Consumer Trust, Choice and Competition New gTLD Metrics.
*Extract from the ALAC **Correspondence** on New gTLD Metrics to Chair of
the ICANN Board's New gTLD Program Committee, with a copy to Chair of the
ICANN Board: ***
*
*
* *“As the entity chartered within ICANN to represent the viewpoint of
Internet end-users, the ALAC has an acute interest in this issue. It is
important to us that the metrics address the evaluation needs of the global
Internet end users and not be biased towards those of the domain
industry. Towards
that end, a number of At-Large members participated in the GNSO Consumer
Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Working Group and made valuable
contributions to the process. During the course of the work a number of
metrics-related issues that were important to the At-Large were deemed by
other members of the Working Group to be out of scope, too difficult to
scope, or potentially embarrassing to new gTLD operators*. **Despite the
objections of the At-Large members, a last minute change demanded by domain
industry representatives was asserted as consensus.* While we acknowledge
that the final report of the Working Group provides metrics that are useful
to a number of ICANN constituencies, we believe it to be significantly
incomplete. Implemented alone, we foresee that such efforts would not
serve the needs of global Internet end users and could easily be dismissed
as a mere public relations stunt on the part of ICANN.”
*
*
*What needs to be done?*
This problem is intertwined with the problem identified in question 2. To
address the problems, a 3-pronged approach is recommended:
i) Address the structural problems of representation in GNSO PDPs (i.e.,
ensure balanced community composition in charter-development and Working
Group membership when the policy to be developed has public interest and
user implications);
ii) Address the volunteer constraints as identified in the response to
Question 2 to enable the participation of capable volunteers who have no
financial stakes and represent the interests of Internet users in GNSO
PDPs; and
iii) Invest in neutral facilitation services in the GNSO to support
cross-community collaboration in policy-development.
*
*
* *
*2. The multi-stakeholder model presumes we can get substantive involvement
from all stakeholders, including those who do not have financial interests
at stake. Is that being achieved effectively, and if not, what does ICANN
need to change to be able to do it effectively?*
Substantive involvement from stakeholders without financial interest at
stake is NOT being achieved effectively despite the “openness” of the
process.
*
*
*At-Large Volunteer Constraints*
*(i) High demand for input*
· There are numerous policy issues that require substantive
engagement and input at any one point in time. In addition, the number of
calls for public comments is high.
*(ii) High complexity*
· The issues that volunteers have to grapple with are complex. It
takes time and considerable effort for At-Large volunteers to achieve
sufficient understanding of user implications for each issue in order to
make meaningful contributions and to consult the At-Large community for
input (i.e., be able to frame and guide community consultations, conduct
surveys, draft statements, propose recommendations, address differences and
achieve consensus).
· Because of the complexity, it takes a minimum of 1 year for a
motivated new volunteer to become operationally functional at ICANN. This
represents 50% of an ALAC member’s term, which fuels the argument that a
volunteer should serve multiple terms in order to be more effective, which
in turn increases entry barriers and limits opportunities for others to
step forward.
*(iii) Severe time constraints*
· As volunteers with no financial stakes, At-Large volunteers
typically have no employers subsidizing their time or activities for ICANN.
This means that volunteers are generally unable to devote sufficient
attention or time to ICANN matters unless they have full control over their
time, which is rare. Intermittent attention is not conducive for
substantive engagement on high volume and complex policy-matters.
*(iv) Lack of incentives*
· There are no incentives in place to motivate deeper and wider
volunteer engagement.
· Opportunities for leadership that bring recognition, which have
value for some volunteers, are limited.
· Support for travel to attend ICANN meetings that could deepen
networking, policy work, collaboration and learning about the
multi-dimensional aspects of issues that can only be obtained from a
multistakeholder environment is limited.
· Virtual means/platforms for interaction or collaboration cannot
completely replace the need for face-to-face encounters, which nurture
social capital such as good will, a more holistic understanding of issues
and trust – all things that are essential for multistakeholder cooperation.
Also, resolution of conflicts/disputes cannot be achieved effectively or
satisfactorily online. At a human level, dissatisfaction does not go away.
They get carried forward into future issues.
*(v) Lack of substantive policy support*
· Given the problems of limited time, high input demand and
complexity, At-Large volunteers require dedicated support in terms of
policy research and analysis that relate to implications of issues and
proposed ICANN policies on users.
· At-Large staff support is currently limited to aspects of
administration, logistics, coordination and communication. Staff services
ideally should be increased to include support for dealing with policy
substance. Alternatively, if staff is limited in terms of capacity, the
service can be outsourced to trusted parties with the necessary competence.
· In the face of potential arguments that staff involvement in policy
support may lead to influence over At-Large deliberations and conclusions,
I would argue that PDP initial issues reports are prepared by staff and
there is sufficient intelligence in the At-Large community to discern bias
in packaged content.
*(vi) Insufficient in-reach and outreach support*
· The ideal mechanisms to address volunteer constraints would be to
rapidly intensify capacity building for volunteers (in-reach) while
actively recruiting more volunteers for a continuous infusion of talent,
time and energy (outreach). The latter is particularly important to
relieve the burden on the core group of volunteers, who undertake the bulk
of policy engagement work and who are continuously at risk of burnout.
· Effective support for crucial in-reach and outreach initiatives
have been largely unsatisfactory and Growth in At-Large volunteers who are
able to contribute actively and meaningfully is slow.
o The At-Large’s idea of the ICANN Academy as a capacity building
mechanism is taking nearly 2 years to reach a pilot stage. Progress is
painstakingly slow.
o Support for outreach has been inadequate and unsystematic. The nature
of support required includes:
§ Dedicated research/surveys and consultations to identify suitable
outreach targets, venues and ambassadors.
§ Funding and packaged-content support for designated ambassadors to go on
specific outreach missions at (for example) regional and global IGF,
consumer association fora, regional events organized by entities that deal
with various aspects of Internet policies, etc.
§ Follow-up support to secure recruitments.
*(vii) Poor volunteer appreciation*
· ICANN has few means of demonstrating appreciation for volunteers. One
such means is recognition. Much recognition is accorded to Chairs of
Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Their significant
contribution in leading their respective communities is clear and not at
all in question. Nevertheless (while the free-rider problem runs across
all communities in various degrees), there are volunteers who toil
selflessly behind the scenes and who need to be acknowledged/recognized in
ways that make them feel valued.
· Providing travel support for Working Group leaders to attend ICANN
meetings is but one small step towards acknowledging the value of their
contribution, but this too has yet to materialize despite the support of
ICANN’s President & CEO for the idea.
· ICANN’s penny-conscious travel regulations often make volunteers
feel like untrustworthy free riders (instead of valuable contributors),
which undermine their dignity. The opportunity cost and value of the time
that serious volunteers contribute to ICANN easily exceed the cost of
travel, hotel and per diems for all the meetings. These volunteers do not
contribute their time only during the meetings. Much of the work happens
between meetings.
· ICANN needs to develop a volunteer incentive program to sustain the
engagement of volunteers, particularly those whose skills are valuable in
ICANN and outside of ICANN.
*(viii) Local language consultation needs*
· The working language of ICANN is English. This is understood and
At-Large volunteers from around the world do their best to work with this
requirement.
· One of the problems faced by volunteers is how to reach out to
their community of Internet users to raise awareness about key policy
issues and to obtain feedback on user impact (to the extent possible) to
channel into ICANN’s PDP or calls for Public Comments. This cannot be done
without grappling to some extent with the issue of having some
communication and content in local languages.
· In the At-Large, volunteers are somehow expected to do this on
their own, which is challenging, particularly when the issues involve a
certain level of technicality or complexity that need to be simplified and
communicated in way that non-technically oriented people will understand. This
requires both content and communications expertise. Volunteers require
support or resources to provide appropriate translations and briefings on
key user issues and implications in their local languages. ICANN needs to
have mechanisms in place to support reasonable and justifiable requests to
this effect.
*3. There has been a lot of discussion, and some ATRT1 recommendations,
related to the Public Comment process. Do you think the process to receive
comments is working well, and if not, what needs to be done to fix or
change it? For the comments that are received, do you feel that those
requested by PDP Working Groups, Staff and the Board are effectively taken
into account in ultimate decisions?*
*
*
· The 21-day public comment period is too short for the At-Large to
conduct thorough consultations and provide comments that are representative
of and vetted by the community. The ALAC has consistently used the reply
period as an extension of the comment period for most of its submissions.
· In the past, comments submitted by the At-Large at the request of
staff and Board often seemed to be ignored. The renewal of the .com
agreement without thick WHOIS is one example.
· Advance planning or announcements for Public Comments are not
effective solutions as the main problem for the At-Large is the overall
bandwidth/capacity issue.
*4. Do you believe that ICANN’s organization of Advisory Committees and
Support Organizations and their respective internal organizations are
effective in achieving ICANN’s multi-stakeholder goals, and if not, how
should things be changed?*
*
*
· The structure of ICANN’s organization of Advisory Committees (ACs)
is appropriate.
· Allowing ACs to have two opportunities to influence policy
development (i.e., as welcome participants in the PDP as well as commenters
on PDP output irrespective of whether or not they engage in the former)
would be appropriate as safeguard measures for end user interest, public
interest as well as DNS security and stability.
· The structure of Supporting Organizations requires more reflection
and consultation in light of the impact of the new gTLD program
(specifically the blurring of boundaries between stakeholder groups) on
ICANN’s governance, financing and multistakeholder process entitlements.
· In a situation where lines that demarcate stakeholder groups in the
GNSO cannot be drawn clearly, the position that GNSO direction must be
adopted by the Board has to be reviewed. Concurrently, the input of the
GAC, the ALAC and the SSAC needs to increase in weightage to balance GNSO
direction. Part of this requires that the Board has formal procedures in
place for handling “Advice” from all Advisory Committees and it is
recommended that the standard currently applied for dealing with GAC Advice
be extended to the ALAC and the SSAC.
*5.Do you have any comments with regard to ICANN’s implementation of the
recommendations of the three earlier AoC Review Teams – Accountability &
Transparency, WHOIS, and Security, Stability & Resiliency?*
*
*
· See “At-Large White Paper on Future Challenges: Making ICANN
Relevant, Responsive and Respected (R3).”
*6.Do you have concerns about ICANN’s overall transparency and
accountability, or related issues that are specific to your group?*
*
*
*On Board and Staff accountability in dealing with ALAC** input or advice*
· The Board’s response to ALAC advice has improved tremendously since
ICANN’s 46th Meeting in Beijing.
· In the past, there was no Board acknowledgement of receipt,
feedback or confirmation that the ALAC advice was read, reviewed or
discussed.
· The ALAC had (and continues to have) concerns that its comments on
policies or calls for public comments are not represented correctly or at
all in Board Briefing Materials. The few ALAC comments known to have been
explicitly included in Board Briefing Materials are few. This against a
backdrop of between 40-50 ALAC statements per year in the past 2 years is a
cause for serious concern. Moreover, in the case of the new gTLD Applicant
Support, there is belief within the community that the ALAC comments were
misrepresented.
· Recommendations:
o A more formalized process is required for the Board’s treatment of ALAC
input or advice to instill volunteer confidence that their contributions
are useful and appreciated.
o ALAC comments need to be included and represented correctly in Board
Briefing Materials by staff.
*
*
*On Compliance Enforcement*
ICANN Compliance has improved tremendously, but has yet to reach the level
envisioned by the WHOIS Review Team.
*13. Is it clear to you that the Board has a dual role as a governance
component inside the organization and is the last stop policy organ? [How
do you deal with that dual role?]*
*
*
· The duality of the Board’s role is clear. It is understood that
the roles allow for conflict, particularly in cases where accountability to
ICANN, the corporate entity, runs contrary to accountability to the
Internet Community.
· The duality requires a safeguard in the form of a procedure where
the Board will only exercise its policy role as a measure of last resort in
cases of clear and massive disregard of the public interest in proposed
policies.
· The procedure requires the following:
o The Board must articulate clearly and convincingly what constitutes the
public interest for that specific decision point.
o The Board must provide exhaustive and defensible
justification/rationale for its decisions against high standards of
scrutiny/challenge.
o The Board must demonstrate that it has conducted extensive
consultations, reviewed all input and addressed any consultation/input gap.
o The Board must demonstrate that it has exhausted all other options in
bottom-up policy development such as to revert the policy back to the
community (with gaps identified) together with appropriate and
well-resourced mechanisms to support the community’s re-consideration or
re-framing of issues/policy (e.g., expert groups, studies, etc.).
· The procedure also requires that all Board members be made aware of
the inherent tension in that duality of roles and that the Board’s
limitations in developing or replacing policy should be part of the
mandatory Board Member orientation program/refresher course.
*14. Are the working methodologies of your group fully accountable and
transparent? If not, how could they be enhanced or approved.*
In general, the working methodologies of the ALAC are transparent and
accountable. However, the ability to track or follow policy development
consultations/work is affected when volunteers switch work platforms
mid-stream, which happens organically (i.e., switching or moving back and
forth between mailing list, wiki and skype chats). A simple review process
to determine which platform should be used for what stage of policy
development/consultation work and the issuance of an advisory for the
community to follow can easily rectify the situation.
END
