Formal and informal policy-making at ICANN

[Dan Krimm]

Just to confirm, this was actually sent to <atrt-public-input at icann.org>
and also cc'd to this list.

Dan



On Tue, July 13, 2010 11:47 am, Dan Krimm wrote:
> The following comments are adapted from a recent discussion thread on the
> NCSG/NCUC discussion forum.
> __________
>
> To the Accountability and Transparency Review Team:
>
> It seems important to address the distinction between formal policy-making
> processes and informal policy-making dynamics at ICANN.
>
> This came up in the context of evaluating the processes of the WHOIS
> Review Team and how its final results feed into policy-making ultimately
> by the Board.  The suggestion was made that the combination of RT
> consensus building and general public comments may provide a meaningful
> channel for stakeholders "at large" to shape the policy development
> process.
>
> This is true only to the extent that the Board accepts the public input as
> given (and thus, only to the extent that the public input is viewed as
> genuinely representative, and not systematically skewed).  Given the
> ongoing uncertainties of public outreach, it seems possible
> (bureaucratically) for the Board to declare that public input is not
> representative, and to estimate the "real" mix of public sentiment, and
> replace the public record with this alternative assessment.  Conversely,
> the public record may *not* be representative, but if it serves the
> Board's purposes it may accept it as such.
>
> I think you can expect spin doctoring on both sides of disputed issues
> when the public record accumulates, with those that are supported by it
> proclaiming how accurate it is, and with those that are undermined by it
> proclaiming how inaccurate it is.  In such cases where consensus is
> difficult to reach, the validity of public input will regularly and
> systematically be called into question.
>
> And, one wonders what informal (and perhaps hidden) influence ICANN staff
> has on the Board, as well.  ICANN staff may not be accountable formally to
> any stakeholders, yet they may have informal preferences for some
> stakeholders over others (even personal conflicts of interest), and those
> preferences could influence policy-making without structural constraint or
> oversight.
>
> It is important to create some sort of formal definition of standards of
> ef