Re: [ga] The Next Move

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

  I and most or our members agree that ICANN is far from open and
transparent as it perports falsely to wish to be.  The BoD is not
going to effect any change in that status quo.  It really doesn't 
desire to.

  However WSIS is also far from open and transparent as it perports
falsely, and as you seem to incorrectly influence folks on this forum
to believe.  I have been a WSIS participant from it's conception and
long before you were Danny..  However WSIS is a slight improvement
from ICANN's ALAC...

Danny Younger wrote:

>    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.
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827