<html><body>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<br />
<div>
<br />
<blockquote>
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu><br />
<div>
<div>
How can there be a request for information for a controversial
directory service that HAS NOT BEEN CREATED YET and an accreditation policy
that HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED YET by the GNSO?</div>
<div>
Is the “expert working group” on a slippery slope toward
creating de facto policy and then present the GNSO with a fait
accompli?</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
It sadly appears so. In an ICANN of strategy panels, expert working
groups and the highest of high level panels the bottom up component of
our multi-stakeholder model appears to be lost. In TM50 we discovered that
when policy made under GNSO auspices conflicts with the desires of connected
and monied interests the later interests prevail and settled policy
decisions are ignored, indeed reversed, by staff and Board. In our SG
DIDP we learned that staff and Board do not feel compelled to divulge the
processes by which decisions are made nor the rationales for their
decisions. Now we have an RFI, though couched in qualified terms, which
anyone interested in submitting a RFP related to the future directory
may be well advised to participate in. Do we really believe ICANN would ask
for input through a RFI resembling an RFP if the way forward on directory
services has not largely been pre-determined? Of course not.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
A reminder: the EWG is, as described in the RFI, is a top down committee
"formed by ICANN's CEO, Fadi Chehade, at the request of ICANN's
Board, to help resolve the nearly decade-long deadlock within the ICANN
community on how to replace the current WHOIS system." It increasingly
appears that "to help" really means "to decide" or
"to impose a decision upon". Then again, that appears to be
the modus operandi of the new regime on many issues (see above).</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Or perhaps that's just the cynic in me writing. Maybe I'll wake
up tomorrow and read how Mr. Chehade stopped off in Compton or South Central
Los Angeles on his way to work to speak with and learn about the needs,
hopes and desires of low income internet users. A good balance to the
time he recently spent in his cherished Davos. I anxiously await the
formation of the Low Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and
Governance, scheduled to meet with Mr. Chehade at a community centre in
Dili. I'm sure after his meeting with the "high level" leaders
at the Annenberg Estate, Mr. Chehsde would relish the opportunity to meet
with common folk in the least wired country on earth to understand their
thoughts, perspectives and challenges. I'm sure my dear friend Paulo
Anuno would be willing to help with the logistics. As the Eurythmics once
sang "sweet dreams are made of this."</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Unfortunately the theme track to this narrative appears to be more one
written by Arrowsmith: "Dream On." Be it the procedural and
substantive direction indicated by the RFI, the staff override of GNSO
policy on TM50 or the lack of transparency in so many matters, the
direction of ICANN under Mr. Chehade and his Board is clearly towards a more
staff oriented, top down, opaque institution. This isn't the type
of organisation I'm comfortable supporting; Indeed I'm finding it
increasingly difficult to sense a major practical difference between this
sort of multi-stakeholderism and the ugly spectre of multilateralism. A
modified version of Orwell's <em>Animal House s</em>eems a bit
apropos to the current situation: All stakeholders are equal, but some
stakeholders are more equal than others, and besides the staff and CEO
reserve the right do what they want anyway regardless of any
stakeholder. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Hope there are some people here far more intelligent than I with thoughts
and plans that would allow us to reverse these trends - if it isn't
already too late. Smiling and applauding when Mr. Chehade mentions the word
"multi-stakeholder" doesn't cut it when his operational
administration frequently forgets the companion term "bottom
up."</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
</div>
</body></html>