[Chapter-delegates] [SEEKING VIEWS] ISOC contribution to ICANN document on Affirmation Reviews
Christopher Wilkinson
cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
Fri Jan 29 10:24:04 PST 2010
Dear Bill:
Thankyou for sharing with us your comments and concerns about the
ICANN evaluations in the context of the Affirmation of Commitments. In
the light of your analysis and your request, allow me to contribute a
few comments:
1. Evaluations: I have become a little skeptical about the time that
the ICANN community and staff have to put into 'evaluations'. I would
rather see the Board itself taking a more active role in publicly
evaluating the proposed decisions which the ICANN Staff and the SOs
present to it. I also have doubts as to the value-added and the cost-
benefit of regularly bringing in external consultants associated with
evaluations, particularly when the community is invited to participate
pro bono and without much other support. Few consultants have the
necessary knowledge, global reach and objectivity to add to the
community's inherent wisdom and the Board's responsibilities.
2. The Panels and their mandate: That being said, if these evaluations
are part of the quid pro quo for the US DOC accepting the Affirmation
of Commitments, then so be it. However, the evaluation panels appear
to be rather top heavy and give the impression that the Board and the
GAC definitely wish to keep control over this process. It is not clear
to me how many, who and how the other panelists would be selected. The
ALAC network is already seeking candidates. The panels will have to be
a reasonable size, essentially limited by the maximum number that can
work together on a conference call, e.g. about 12. In any event, their
work would be subject to public comment and to final decisions by the
Board (I trust).
In this context, I notice that ICANN can be quite pernikerty about
whether a task force or panel has a mandate or a charter to make
_policy_ recommendations. The drafting of Terms of Reference is
apparently quite sensitive in this area.
3. Competition and consumer choice: The evaluation should have been
undertaken _before_ the current gTLD process. The most critical
economic decisions that have to be taken, soon, are the creation of
new TLDs. This evaluation should not be delayed until _after_ the new
gTLD decisions have been taken! This work should be undertaken by
permanent economic staff advising the ICANN Board directly.
4. Public Interest: I agree that the Public Interest has to be
defined. The discussion in the NetChoice submission is a good start.
In this context, I recall Steve Crocker's observation that the DNS
market is an entirely human construction, ex nihilo. (And by
extension, that the community can do whatever we like with it,
although he did not say that.) David Maher also addressed this issue
in a recent meeting in Barcelona.
I would be very interested in your proposals as to how to define the
public interest in this context. I would also welcome other comments
and contributions from the community.
Regards, Christopher.
On 20 Jan 2010, at 18:57, Bill Graham wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I've carefully gone through the ICANN document "Affirmation Reviews:
> Requirements and Implementation Processes," released 26/12/09, and
> available here: <http://icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#affrev
> >. I believe it would be appropriate and helpful for ISOC to
> comment on it. It is really 2 documents in 1. The first part is a
> broad proposal for carrying out the reviews called for in the
> Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the US government. The
> 2nd part is the draft terms of reference for the first review called
> for by the Affirmation of Commitments: that is, a review of ICANN's
> accountability, transparency and decision-making processes, that is
> to be done by year end.
>
> Comments are due by the end of January, meaning I will have to
> complete and send the document on January 29. Because time is
> short, I thought I would outline what I recommend ISOC would say
> here, and seek your views on a couple of questions.
>
> The paper raises several questions for me, mostly related to the
> terms of reference for the first review. A primary issue is that I
> don't think that the paper is clear about what the review is
> targeting. The proposed terms of reference does not suggest how
> they are going to define or to develop definitions of accountability
> and transparency, or of the "public interest." I had the impression
> during the Seoul meeting that work is needed within the organization
> to formulate a clear understanding of what is meant by the "public
> interest," and I believe that some clear definitional work is
> essential if the review process is to help ICANN continue its
> positive development. As it is treated in the consultation
> document, "public interest" could be seen as similar to "client
> satisfaction." From an ISOC perspective, that is much too narrow a
> conception, because it misses the concept of ICANN's stewardship
> role over a vital and shared global resource. While the
> stakeholders and participants in ICANN processes are the ones to be
> involved in the reviews, they must look always at what is best for
> the Internet and for the broad community of Internet users world
> wide. One other comment making a similar point has already been
> made <http://forum.icann.org/lists/affrev-draft-processes/>, and
> that is the major message I recommend ISOC make in its comments.
>
> In addition, because I trained and worked as an evaluation
> professional for several years, I would propose to offer some
> technical/methodological suggestions that I believe will be helpful,
> but because they are mechanical, I won't go into them here.
>
> In particular, I would appreciate hearing from you what elements you
> think need to be included in definitions of accountability and
> transparency. It would also be helpful to have your comments on the
> proposed composition of the review teams. ICANN's paper is
> proposing that the teams be kept small and composed of
> "representatives" of various ACs and SOs. From your experience, do
> you think this is achievable? Is it practical to have
> representatives from large and diverse groups who can accurately
> represent the community's interests and views. Do you agree with
> the recommended approaches to carrying out the studies?
>
> I would appreciate it if you share your remarks by end of your day,
> January 27 at the latest. Earlier responses would be much
> appreciated.
>
> And of course, I'd appreciate seeing a copy of any detailed comments
> you may make directly to ICANN.
>
> best regards
>
> Bill
>
> ========================
> Bill Graham
> Global Strategic Engagement
> The Internet Society
> graham at isoc.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100129/4f25964b/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list