Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi Jonathan,

i heartily agree.  putting myself in the shoes of a contracted party, i find it 
a bit of a reach to imagine how i would participate in a policy making process 
(the “mind-numbingly detailed” work) where there was a worldwide crowdsourced 
liquid democracy on the other side of the table. the closest i can come to a 
parallel example would be a union negotiation structured that way.  it might 
work, but i’d like to take that journey in small steps.  i do see some lower 
hanging fruit trying out some of these ideas in the Stakeholder 
Group/constituency part of the GNSO

i would like to introduce a distinction between a “project” and a “function” 
into this conversation.  this next section is based on a portion of David 
Kolb’s Incite Leadership e-book that he shared with those of us who went 
through the pilot leadership development program in Buenos Aires.

PROJECTS (which i liken to working groups) have:

- a charter, a schedule, a beginning, a middle, an end, and a deliverable
- a team that works jointly to integrate their talents, skills and positions
- joint or collective work products
- a work approach that is adaptable and shaped and enforced by members
- mutual and individual accountability

FUNCTIONS (which i liken to ACs, SOs SGs and constituencies) have:

- an ongoing, relatively-unchanging purpose from year to year
- individual goals which add to the ongoing group purpose
- members who mostly work on individual tasks that match their skills
- rigorous working approach driven by a leadership hierarchy headed by a single 
leader
- strong individual accountability

i’ve always thought preparing capable and effective WG participants to be one 
of the ongoing jobs that the (functional) SGs and constituencies do.  i would 
be quite interested in exploring some of the techniques proposed in the IdeaLab 
report in the context of broadening the base and conversation within the 
ongoing ISPCP constituency for example.  but it’s more of a stretch for me to 
see these broad crowdsourced liquid-democracy proposals integrating with the 
WG-based policy-making (essentially “contract negotiation”) process that we 
oversee.

which brings me to the last idea for this post.  i wonder whether we need *two* 
GNSO Councils — a Policy Council (us) and a Leadership Council comprised of the 
heads of the SGs and constituencies who elect their own leader to coordinate 
and drive the work of those functional bodies. one way to think of the current 
GNSO Council is to compare it to a Project Management Office (PMO) function. we 
are a function, our job is to oversee the smooth operation of an ongoing series 
of projects (policy initiatives). in my view we don’t coordinate the ongoing 
work of the SGs and constituencies — that’s the job of their respective 
leaders.  but where is the structure that provides *them* overall direction, 
oversight and accountability?  don’t they need their own Council and leader? 


mikey




On Feb 4, 2014, at 3:22 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Mikey and others who have contributed to this thread.
>  
> I doubt anyone would take issue with increased and broader based 
> participation.  Nor some blue skies thinking as to how to achieve that.
> I really like some of your concepts around different levels of participation, 
> use of mentoring etc.
>  
> The challenge (I think) we have here is that the blue skies thinking is 
> taking place with no apparent reference to the GNSO including current 
> purpose, function and mechanics.
> This operation in isolation (top-down?) is one significant concern.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 04 February 2014 02:56
> To: Council
> Subject: Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN
>  
> hi Klaus,
>  
> i too have been pushing a notion that we need to broaden the base of 
> participation.  for those of you who’ve already seen this picture, my 
> apologies.  but this is something i really want to work on, so i’m constantly 
> banging the drum.  the picture has now evolved into blog post form and i’ll 
> paste the whole shebang in here.  i think that this is mostly human work — 
> not tech-tools work.  the problem that you bring in is the one of scale — how 
> to reach all those people, organizations, businesses, leaders across the 
> whole world.  i don’t know the answer to that one.  
>  
> here’s the post.
>  
> mikey
>  
> http://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/icann-participants
>  
> ICANN participants
> 
> I do these scratch-pad posts for really narrow audiences, the rest of you 
> will find them a bit bewildering.  Sorry about that.  This one is aimed at 
> the GNSO Council, as we ponder the question "how do we increase the pool of 
> PDP working-group volunteers?"
> 
> Broadening the bottom of the bottom-up process is a critical need at ICANN 
> right now. But at least in the part of ICANN where I live (GNSO policy-making 
> working groups) the conversations that take place are very nuanced and do 
> require a good deal of background and experience before a person is going to 
> be an effective contributor to the conversation.
> 
> So I think that we/ICANN need to develop a clearer understanding of the many 
> different roles that people play as they progress toward becoming an 
> effective participant in the process. And then put the resources and process 
> in place to encourage them along the way.  This is my current picture...
> 
> 
>  
> Roles
> 
> Here's a starter-kit list of roles that people play. I'm putting them in 
> pairs because nobody can do this by themselves -- we all need the help of 
> others as we progress. I've also built a little drawing which puts these in a 
> never ending circle because we're always turning back into newcomers as we 
> explore another facet of the organization. I decided to beat the term 
> "translation" to death in these descriptions.  I think ICANN needs to 
> "translate" what it does for a wide range of audiences to make it easier for 
> them to participate.
> 
> Newcomer <-> Recruiter
> 
> A newcomer is likely to be just as bewildered by that experience as most of 
> the rest of us have been. They need a "recruiter" greet them, welcome them 
> into the flow, translate what's going on into terms they can understand, find 
> out what their interests and goals are and get them introduced to a few 
> "guides" who can take them to the next step.
> 
> Explorer <-> Guide
> 
> As the newcomer finds their place, they will want to explore information and 
> conversations that are relevant to their interests and they need a "guide" to 
> call on to translate their questions into pointers toward information or 
> people that they're trying to find.
> 
> Student <-> Teacher
> 
> As the person progresses they need a positive, low-risk way to learn the 
> skills and knowledge they need in order to be able to contribute. And, like 
> any student, they need a teacher or two. I've always thought that we are 
> missing a huge opportunity in the GNSO Constituencies by not consciously 
> using the process of preparing public comments as a place for less 
> experienced members to develop their policy-making skills in a more intimate, 
> less risky environment than a full-blown working-group. I'd love to see newer 
> members of Constituencies consciously brought into progressively richer roles 
> in the teams that write public comments for Constituencies.
> 
> Researcher <-> Expert
> 
> Another person who needs a very specific kind of partner is a person who 
> comes to ICANN to research -- either to find an answer to a policy-related 
> question, find the best way to handle a problem or complaint that they have 
> with a provider, or to discover whether there is data within the ICANN 
> community that can help with formal academic research. Again, here is a 
> person with fairly clear questions who needs help sifting and sorting through 
> all the information that's available here -- another form of translation, 
> this time provided by a librarian or an "expert" in my taxonomy.  This person 
> may not want to build new skills, they're just here for answers.  But filling 
> that "expert" role could be a great opportunity for somebody who's already 
> here.
> 
> Teammate <-> Coach
> 
> A person who is experiencing a policy-making drafting-team (e.g. within a 
> constituency) or working group for the first few times has a lot of things to 
> learn, and many of those things aren't obvious right at the start. And this 
> person may not feel comfortable asking questions of the whole group for a 
> wide variety of reasons. They would benefit from a "coach" -- a person who 
> makes it clear that they are available to answer *any* question, no matter 
> how small. This person is translating a sometimes-mysterious team process for 
> a teammate who is learning the ropes.
> 
> Leader <-> Mentor
> 
> As our person progresses, they eventually take up a leadership role, and once 
> again could use the help of others to navigate new duties -- yet another form 
> of translation, this time delivered by a mentor who helps the emerging leader 
> be effective in their chosen role.
> 
> Information
> 
> I also think there are all kinds of information assets that participants use 
> and access in different ways depending on what their role is at the moment. 
> Another kind of translation! Here's another starter-kit list:
> 
> Organizational structures
> Documents
> Transcripts
> Email archives
> Models
> Processes
> Tools and techniques
> Outreach materials
> I think there's a gigantic opportunity to make this "career progression" and 
> "information discovery" easier and more available to people wanting to 
> participate at the bottom of the bottom-up process. I'm not sure that there's 
> much need for new technology to do all this -- my thoughts run more toward 
> setting goals, rewarding people who help, etc. But a dab of cool tech here 
> and there might help...
> 
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Friends
> 
> Greetings. I have now read the report twice and I think this report merits an 
> extended reply by the GNSO.
> 
> I will refrain from derisory comments about the report as far as a I can, 
> only one, the first page looks like IG buzzword bingo on steroids and like 
> steroids it replaces substance with short term illusions!
> 
> A good example is the first buzzword "crowdsource". Crowdsource is a good 
> thing, but as it is used in the report it is just a distraction the real 
> problem. The problem of IG in general and of ICANN in particular is not a 
> lack of participation, it is not even a question of language and acronyms. 
> The uncomfortable fact remains true that Cyberspace today resembles a country 
> where 1% of the population governs 99% of the population and 98% of these 
> don’t even know that the 1% exist! This represents a real legitimacy problem 
> for all current IG processes. Crowd sourcing is only real and legitimate if 
> it is based on knowledge that is available to everybody in appropriate forms. 
> Everybody needs to be able to be in the crowd and not just a self-elected 
> elite. “The report says: (page4), “For an institution to merit the peoples 
> trust, it first has to trust its people”. The people we are talking about 
> here is the global Internet user community, all of them. Trust can only come 
> when all the people know their rights and responsibilities. In the case of IG 
> the responsibility to inform all is not simply discharged by awareness 
> campaigns and nice pictures, but by demonstrating the relevance of IG to 
> every level of its user community. People engage with things only if they are 
> relevant to them, awareness is a result of relevance, empowerment and trust 
> are the result of trusting the internet users in understanding the true 
> significance and deep relevance of IG in all our lives. (Mikey, here is I 
> think also part of the answer to your question regarding getting people 
> involved into the Wgs, its not the language, its not the time, its that we 
> have to find a way to make the WG topics relevant to a large number of 
> people. This will not happen if we wait that people come to us, we need to 
> get out to them). IG institutions can only be legitimate and successful if 
> they put the awareness building and empowerment at the center of their 
> thinking and doing. All governance structures for Cyberspace need to be user, 
> not expert group centric. Accountability can only come from the awareness of 
> all what IG is accountable for. Transparency in contracts and processes only 
> makes sense when all understand what the contracts are about. Innovation has 
> to come from informed participation based on relevance not engineered 
> organizational processes.
> I am surprised by the liberal recommendation by the report of on-line tools 
> that are only available to an elite and not the average online user in a 
> developing country. Like the whole report, these recommendations reflect a 
> first world centered view on IG and technology.
> Are other councilors also disturbed by the liberal use in the report of the 
> “ICANN should...” phrase followed even sometimes by a time line and the clear 
> indication that the expectation is on speedy implementation without much 
> discussion and control? Maybe the authors of the report should be the first 
> who take their own recommendations serious:”In the future, we need to eschew 
> the kind of self-serious pomposity that gets in the way of change and embrace 
> humility and fallibility as touchstones to progress”. Wise words, well 
> spoken, unfortunately completely ignored in the very same report.
> Happy to work with fellow councilors on a more detailed reply.
> Yours
> Klaus
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/3/2014 7:24 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> Thanks All,
>  
> Personally, I can see no reason to use such words.  That symbolic detail 
> aside, this does throw up some critical points about how we engage with this 
> work.
>  
> I have a call planned this week to talk one-to-one with Beth Novek in order 
> to give some feedback.  I’ll obviously take into account any input from the 
> Council.
>  
> In addition, the Council needs to think about any other feedback, responses 
> or engagement with the work of this panel.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Gabriela Szlak [mailto:gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 03 February 2014 17:46
> To: Maria Farrell
> Cc: John Berard; Jonathan Robinson; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] About Designing a 21st Century ICANN
>  
> ... And bear in mind that the purpose - in their own words is- :
>  
> ·         Proposing new models for broad, inclusive engagement, 
> consensus-based policymaking and institutional structures to support such 
> enhanced functions; and
> ·         Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable a global ICANN 
> community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making
> Google translator cannot even translate those two words... it feels really 
> strange to talk about global engagement and participatory processes only in 
> English and in a an English that it seems also complex for english speakers 
> to get...
>  
> G.
>  
>  
> 
> Gabriela Szlak 
>  
> Skype: gabrielaszlak
> Twitter: @GabiSzlak
>  
> La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. 
> The information in this e-mail is confidential.
>  
>  
> 
> 2014-02-03 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Goodness, I also nearly snorted my coffee but held it down long enough to 
> look up 'scylla' and 'charybdis'. I was chagrinned to learn these new (to me) 
> words were first used in the ICANN context by the beloved Norwegian Harald 
> Alvestrand back in 2002, a few reform movements back. Who knew?
> 
> "The current ICANN has attempted to chart a course between the scylla of 
> doing nothing and the charybdis of doing everything;" 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html
>  
> 
> On 3 February 2014 17:23, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jonathan,
>  
> My coffee came through my nose this morning when I read the blueprint from 
> the multistakeholder strategy panel.  But, while language like this: 
> "engaging people in meaningful and productive conversations about how to 
> redesign the way ICANN runs itself is difficult because the conversation gets 
> caught, on the one hand, between the scylla of broad generalities and 
> geopolitics without regard to the specifics of ICANN’s day-to-day work, and 
> the charybdis of mind-numbing technical detail on the other" is a bit 
> overblown, it also works as mis-direction. There is no argument but that 
> generalities, geopolitics and technical detail are a part of ICANN's life, 
> but I would argue with "broad" and "mind-numbing."  That kind of language 
> tips the player's hand.
> 
> Further, by pegging effectiveness to the use of expert networks and linking 
> legitimacy to crowdsourcing at each stage of decision making may only hint at 
> the future shape of ICANN but it is clear in its view that the current 
> version is no longer appetizing.  I will likely think hard about that as I 
> pack for the trip to Singapore.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [council] FW: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN
> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2/3/14 1:12 am
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN
>  
>  
> From: The ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation & The GovLab 
> [mailto:icannmsipanel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 31 January 2014 19:01
> To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Stage 2 Begins: Designing a 21st Century ICANN
>  
> 
> Hello!
> 
> By engaging the stakeholders of the Internet (this really includes 
> everyone!), the ICANN Strategy Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation (the MSI 
> Panel) and The Governance Lab @ NYU (The GovLab) are working to develop a set 
> of concrete proposals for designing the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
> Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the public interest organization responsible for 
> coordinating the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) – for the 21st Century.
> 
> We’re writing to request your participation in this important initiative and 
> to help us spread the word!
> 
> Today launches Stage 2 – Proposal Development – of our online engagement 
> effort aimed at getting your input into the Panel’s work in order to bring 
> our ideas for evolving ICANN from principle to practice. The Panel has been 
> specifically charged by ICANN’s President and CEO with:
> 
> ·  Proposing new models for international engagement, consensus-driven 
> policymaking and institutional structures to support such enhanced functions; 
> and
> ·  Designing processes, tools and platforms that enable the global ICANN 
> community to engage in these new forms of participatory decision-making.
> To answer this charter, we launched a three-stage brainstorm initiative on 
> November 19, 2013. We started with Stage 1: Idea Generation. The Panel and 
> GovLab launched an engagement platform asking the global public to share 
> their ideas for what techniques, strategies, tools and platforms ICANN could 
> look to and learn from to help transform itself into an effective, legitimate 
> and evolving 21st century global organization. 
> 
> We now want to take these ideas closer to implementation during Stage 2. To 
> do so, we’ve shared the draft proposal blueprint on the GovLab Blog 
> organizing all of our ideas into 16 concrete proposals for ICANN, which we 
> are opening up to you for discussion. We want your feedback, input, comments, 
> questions, and suggestions on what we’ve collected. We’ve also published our 
> first set of proposals, which include recommendations for ICANN to:
> Leverage expert networking;
> Use crowdsourcing during all phases of decisionmaking; and
> Crowdsource oversight and develop standards to measure success.
> Feel free to provide feedback or reactions using comments or the line-by-line 
> annotation tools enabled on the blog.
> 
> You can also see all of these materials aggregated on the GovLab's ICANN 
> project page, online HERE.
> Help us spread the word!
> 
> Do you know any people or organizations who would be interested in these 
> proposal topics? We’d love to get their feedback, too. Consider doing any of 
> the following:
> 
> ·  Forward this “Call To Action” to colleagues and organizations you know 
> working in these areas who may have ideas or feedback to share on the blog.
> 
> ·  Share our proposal draft links (all accessible here), as widely as 
> possible within your networks (e.g., via mailing lists and listservs). Feel 
> free to link to these posts or repost on your website edited to fit your 
> needs!
> 
> ·  Use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ to spread 
> the word about this initiative (use the #WeCANN hashtag!).
> 
> ·  To inspire participation and learn how to contribute, watch and share a 
> video The GovLab made when we launched this brainstorm.
> 
> ·  Discuss the MSI Panel’s work and proposals in your own communities and 
> share your comments and feedback with the us in the blog comments or at 
> icannmsipanel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> 
>  
> Toward the end of February – we will move into the last stage of this 
> brainstorm – Stage 3: Collaborative Drafting. Using a wiki, we will invite 
> collaborative drafting on a first full draft of all proposals that the Panel 
> will then submit to the ICANN CEO, Board and community. So stay tuned!
> 
> For more information, visit The GovLab at www.thegovlab.org.                  
>                                                                               
>            
> 
> Thanks and best,
> 
> The MSI Panel & The GovLab
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)