[gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC adoption by November 24

[Alex Gakuru]

sorry, I meant below as my reaction under this thread..
- - - -
Spot on Milton! See:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00627.html
It was just after the Board had decided to do away with the work we'd done
on JAS-WG. However, they later on changed their mind and "encouraged us to
carry on with the work."
- - - -

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Avri:
>
> This report makes me vaguely uneasy and even troubled. I know that
> “outreach” and “participation” are supposed to be unqualified Good Things in
> this crazy environment, but I find that to be extremely naïve, for reasons I
> will explain below.
>
>
>
> In my mind, ICANN is a governance institution and therefore its task is to
> formulate policies and rules that bring a constructive order to a fairly
> narrow area of Internet activity (domain names). In order to do that, it has
> to put into place a representational and participatory structure that
> facilitates making good, effective, legitimate rules and policies. But the
> representational structure should be populated by an autonomous civil
> society, not by the governance institution. If ICANN’s activities actually
> have an impact on people’s lives, and it gives those impacted people
> meaningful forms of influence over what it does, THEY WILL PARTICIPATE. They
> will recruit themselves.
>
>
>
> ICANN is not, or should not be, an evangelical Church with a missionary
> wing that views enlarging its membership as an inherently good thing. ICANN
> should stick to its narrow, technical policy mission.
>
>
>
> The report proposes a standing “Outreach Task Force” (OTF) that is rather
> large, about 40-50 people. It holds up the IGF MAG as a (positive!) example,
> something that might surprise those of us who have dealt with the MAG and
> the intense representational politics that have swirled around it. Not to
> mention the factional divisions that have mostly paralyzed it.  This OTF is
> then going to spend a lot of money supporting the activities of a large
> group as they recruit people into the GNSO.
>
>
>
> The report also uses the ITU’s Youth outreach program as an example. But
> here again, if you know that program, it is basically a
> marketing/educational program, designed to bolster the ITU’s future. True,
> it has legitimate educational purposes, as the young people who enter that
> program do have enhanced opportunities to learn about international policy
> making in telecommunications. But in ITU’s case there is no confusion
> between who are the real members to whom the organizational is accountable
> (governments) and the “recruits” who receive this education. In ICANN the
> line is blurry.
>
>
>
> To express my view in the simplest way, I don’t think ICANN, Inc. should be
> doing, or should be actively managing, popular “outreach.” I think the
> appropriate level of participation and recruiting should be driven by the
> external people who have a stake in what ICANN does. Human rights groups who
> want ICANN to pay more attention to freedom of expression or privacy should
> recruit supporters and bring them into ICANN. Business/trademark groups who
> want ICANN to pay more attention to their interests should do the same. What
> really matters here is:
>
>
>
> a)  how fair and balanced ICANN’s board and board selection process is,
>
> b)  how fair and balanced the GNSO’s representational structure is,
>
> c)  how well ICANN translates participation into good policies,
>
> d)  whether ICANN has the appropriate accountability mechanisms binding it
> to its stakeholders’ will.
>
>
>
> ICANN should concentrate on those things as a priority, not on some blind
> rush to “get more people involved.”
>
>
>
> At best, getting more people involved in a flawed structure is useless
> because the newcomers quickly learn that the process is dysfunctional or
> their efforts have no impact, and they leave. At worst, “getting more people
> involved” becomes a way for the Corporation staff to recruit malleable
> drones who can be used to undermine or bypass the real stakeholders.
>
>
>
> Note that ICANN Inc. is currently paralyzing new constituency formation in
> NCSG because it won’t approve a charter that was approved overwhelmingly by
> its noncommercial participants. Note how it uses the alleged lack of
> widespread participation in NCUC to manipulate our representation in GNSO,
> but ignores a far less diverse showing in the CSG. Those two things by
> themselves should make us deeply skeptical of any ICANN-driven “outreach”
> program. In the past two years, NCUC did more successful outreach – at no
> cost to ICANN – than any other group. And yet what did it get us? Is
> “outreach” really the goal here, or something else?
>
>
>
> Note that this report proposes to use the South Summer School on Internet
> Governance (SSIG) as a “recruiting” tool. This bothers me. Currently, these
> wonderful summer schools conceived by Kleinwachter are autonomous
> institutions. They already educate and sometimes get people interested
> enough to get involved. If we make them tools or arms of the GNSO, via ICANN
> funding or pushing ICANN recruiting efforts, their independence is lost, and
> so is most of their value.
>
>
>
> I repeat my main premise: insofar as ICANN’s activities actually have an
> impact on people’s lives, and it gives those impacted people meaningful
> forms of influence over what it does, THEY WILL PARTICIPATE, you will not
> need an “outreach” program. Investing major amounts of time and money in
> “outreach” instead of in fixing ICANN’s representation and accountability is
> a big mistake, a diversion.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf
> Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:08 AM
> *To:* NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach
> Recommendations - for OSC adoption by November 24
>
>
>
> Comments welcome so i know what i think.
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>  *From: *"Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
>
> *Date: *10 November 2010 03:36:14 EST
>
> *To: *<gnso-osc at icann.org>
>
> *Subject: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC
> adoption by November 24*
>
>
>
>
>
> Fellow OSC members,
>
> please find attached a recommendation on outreach from the CSG team,
> chaired by Olga Cavalli, in an effort led by Debbie Hughes.
>
> It is revised based on  the most recent round of input earlier from the
> OSC and supersedes the version sent to the OSC on 19 October 2010.
>
> It is a redline version.
>
> Let me have your comments with a view to OSC adoption by  November 24 .
>
>
>
> After which, assuming a positive reception, we will send it to the GNSO
> Council.
>
>
>
> Philip
>
> OSC Chair
>
>
>



-- 
regards,

Alex Gakuru
http://www.mwenyeji.com
Hosting, surprise yourself!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101111/e55ecb0b/attachment-0001.html>