Evan, I don't argue the merits of your statement regarding the role of ICANN in the internet governance ecology. And frankly, the interactions between ICANN's internal bodies are mysterious to me. I forwarded the example below for two reasons. 1) I saw people who normally don't concern themselves with ICANN raising this issue. 2) I saw multiple people who are not connected with each other raising the issue. So, for the corners of the earth that detour through my laptop, I saw the visibility of ICANN raised above the noise, getting attention from folks who don't usually pay attention - but not positive attention. The narrative getting out there is that ICANN staff is usurping civil society. Since these folks are people involved in public interest/ consumer rights work, I expect that they touch a lot of North American internet users. Which means we (NARALO et al) should be concerned about the perception, if not the merit. I withhold judgement on the merit, because I'm not familiar with the details. Here is another one: Begin forwarded message:
Date: July 22, 2009 5:50:14 PM GMT-04:00 To: Dharma Dailey <dharma@ethoswireless.com> Subject: Fwd: [Isp-08] Please comment on ICANN noncommercial user charter controversy
Hey Dharma.
Are you writing a response to this?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Laura DeNardis <laura.denardis@yale.edu> Date: July 22, 2009 8:12:38 AM EDT To: Isp-08@mailman.yale.edu Subject: [Isp-08] Please comment on ICANN noncommercial user charter controversy
Dear ISP Colleagues,
If anyone is so inclined, please send a quick public email (gnso-stakeholder-charters@icann.org ) to ICANN to weigh in regarding the imposition of the ICANN staff- developed charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). The bottom line is that ICANN, with no explanation, discarded the charter drafted by civil society in a consensus process and, under pressure from commercial interests, replaced it with an ICANN staff- developed charter. I'll copy some supporting information below, including my public comments, but the issue is ultimately about whether noncommercial Internet users will have a role in ICANN policy making.
Thanks, Laura
Comment from Dr. Milton Mueller (Internet Governance Project): http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00001.html
Comment from Dr. Laura DeNardis (Yale Information Society Project): http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00015.html
IP Justice Statement on Stakeholder Group Charter Injustices: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00012.html
Public Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/
_______________________________________________ Isp-08 mailing list Isp-08@mailman.yale.edu http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/isp-08
On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Dharma Dailey wrote:
There are more like these in my inbox. The most chatter I've seen on an ICANN issue...
Perhaps, but judging by your mail I'd say that the chatter is either misinformed or is making what I'd consider ... unusual ... conclusions.
ICANN is one teeny tiny part of what is generally thought of as "Internet governance". It attracts plenty of attention because it has -- and generates for others -- a lot of money. But ICANN, at its core, is not charged with anything more than managing domain names. And it has a massively hard time doing *that* right. Mission creep -- whether to create new trademark treaties or judge comparative morality -- is to be resisted.
Some of the elevated interest you see appears to be the result of a concerted effort by members of NCUC to increase its membership in anticipation of the changes happening to GNSO.
Support for a "democratic Internet" sounds nice and squishy, but what does it really mean? And how much does such a movement expect from ICANN that is actually within ICANN's mandate to provide?
Does it mean direct election of people to the ICANN Board? That approach didn't work well. But, then, arguably the current approach isn't very accountable either. So what then?
The current existence of At-Large is currently ICANN's attempt to find out what the "public interest" actually is. Ans as it's matured it's been given more and more voice, leading to At-Large's directly putting people on the ICANN board. You're part of this process and so am I. What can *we* do to help advance better policy? How can *we* influence ICANN to do the right thing?
Of particular interest to me is DeeDee's statement:
A civil society group was set up (agreed to by ICANN-- the official international internet organization) to come up with suggestions for democratizing internet governance. This statement seems wrong on so many levels:
- Who deemed ICANN to be "the official international internet organization"? - What exactly is this civil society group that ICANN agreed to? - What level of agreement? Was it sponsorship? Partnership? Or merely acknowledgement? - Do the people involved in this know how little ICANN's mandate includes "Internet governance"?
I too participated in WSIS and I found much of it to eventually be a waste of time (see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wsis/Leibovitch.html for more). Within At-Large in ICANN I have found a real opportunity to change things, though some of that change will require time, skill and really thick skins.
I would invite anyone who feels strongly about these issues to tackle them from within ICANN. At-Large needs smart and active groups and people who will help us address and confront ICANN policies -- existing and proposed -- that are against the public interest. The infrastructure already exists to do that. And we have demonstrated -- on issues of domain tasting and elsewhere -- that we can be effective in influencing policy when the will and human resources exist to do it. At-Large is far more than a "participatory gesture".
So if DeeDee and others like her want to indeed make a difference, there is already a way. The NCSG mechanism is important, but there is more to the public interest than that mechanism alone. At-Large has a mandate that allows it to participate and influence all corners of ICANN, not just the GNSO portion in which the NCSG would participate. And based on current recommendations we will soon have full participation on the Board.
Today's deadline will come and go, but advancing the public interest requires more than vague letter-writing campaigns asking ICANN to act outside its mandate. People who want to make a difference have clear paths to do so -- and in the process, they'll come to a better understanding of what ICANN *can* do to make the Internet better, and what it can't.
- Evan
Begin forwarded message:
From: DeeDee Halleck <dhalleck@ucsd.edu> Date: July 23, 2009 7:56:46 AM GMT-04:00 To: "MADCoList" <MADCoList@list.media-democracy.net> Cc: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, grc@maillist.peak.org, mediaresearchconf07@listserve.ssrc.org Subject: [MADCoList] Open the process for internet governance! Act Today!
Dear friends,
Please read the inclosed letter and take action TODAY-- it is the deadline.
For several years I took part in the deliberations at the World Summit on the Information Society. I wanted to see what other countries were doing in regards to community media and to help negotiate a place for public access within international media regulations and recommendations. As part of this process I learned a bit about internet governance. A civil society group was set up (agreed to by ICANN-- the official international internet organization) to come up with suggestions for democratizing internet governance. We're not talking revolution here, but a few participatory gestures, slight, but important.
To the amazement of the civil society group, these suggestions were completely ignored. ICANN continues to represent only government and commercial interests. The hope that there could be civil society participation has been rudely dashed. However, the group that worked to craft an alternative process is asking ALL THOSE WHO WORK IN NON-PROFIT MEDIA to weigh in and let ICANN know how important it is that civil society gets "a seat at the table".
PLEASE READ THIS AND SEND A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR A DEMOCRATIC INTERNET. DeeDee Halleck