[ga] The Next Move

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

As I reviewed the notes from the Amsterdam Conference on the ICANN Strategic Plan, I was particularly drawn to the hackneyed recommendation:  ICANN should reach out to and [facilitate] [encourage] participation.  How many times have we heard this pathetic refrain?
 
It seems like everyone within ICANN that has representation on the ICANN Board incredulously wonders why those without representation aren't vigorously participating... duh.
 
Those of us that have suffered through the ICANN process understand that every possible effort has been made by ICANN insiders to keep certain groups completely out of the policy deliberation process.  The registrant community has repeatedly been refused representation within the GNSO; the at-large community has been denied representation on the ICANN Board.  
 
At the very least, you would think that someone in ICANN would be smart enough to allow for full participation in policy formulation by way of the working group process which used to be the hallmark of the "deliberative" ICANN -- but no, if the GNSO Council can't control the outcome of a working group and preordain its conclusions, then they want no part of it -- that was the lesson we all learned from the last working group, the DNSO Review WG -- that is why we now only have Task Forces with exceptionally limited memberships.
 
So we are at a standstill.  
 
But it's not as if the at-large or community participation is no longer manifest; to the contrary, vibrant participation is evident outside of ICANN and is dramatically exemplified in the WSIS process wherein the Working Group approach is enjoying unparalleled success.  
 
The Working Group on Internet Governance consists of 40 members drawn from all the world?s regions, as well as from different sectors.  They were tasked with devising an Action Plan to attend to a multitude of issues and were given a very narrow timeline within which to get certain things done.  Prior to the release of their first set of draft papers a number of discussion lists were set up to aggregate worldwide commentary... [CS-Plenary], [governance], [IGOVAP].  By way of example, the latter discussion list which just started on January 13 (with a scheduled run until February 17) has attracted over 180 participants from 27 different countries within Asia/Pacific.
 
Upon publishing their first set of draft comments this Working Group has solicited and has already received formal commentary from four governments, six designated Observers, and twenty-seven entities/organizations and/or individuals (all within a matter of days).  
 
Why so much participation?   It's precisely because the process is open, because the outcome is not already predetermined, and because people have a chance to have their views heard and presented to a deliberative body.
 
Contrast this approach with the throw-a-brick-with-a-note-over-the-wall-into-an-ICANN-forum to those-that-will-never-read-and-incorporate-the-contribution approach taken by the GNSO and ALAC.  It's no wonder that participation is at an all-time low.
 
ICANN can learn from the WSIS working group process.  It can benefit from a Call for Papers approach in conjunction with a Working Group effort that incorporates hundreds of participants on multiple discussion lists...
 
...or it can continue on its present path and get its advice solely from a miniscule circle of advisors and their marginally performing taskforces.
 
Does ICANN really want participation?  It's clear that neither the GNSO nor the ALAC will ever independently inaugurate a reform to allow for a wider range of participation -- such an action would threaten their current uncontested reign.  If participation is to be actualized within ICANN, the next move will have to be made by the Board. 

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'