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

[Rosemary Sinclair]

Hi all

This is a quick reply

the issue of concern to me is the asymmetry of resource in every sense between the market-place (and thus self-funded) participants in ICANN and consumers who are negatively effected by a range of behaviours related to domain names

we see this in Australia in the telco sector with residential consumers and even in my own organisation  for business users of telco services - interest is high, funding is low and therefore outcomes are weighted to industry interests.

I think it's a type of public good problem - everyone wants them, but not all can or will pay.

in the end Government funded  consumer group (which is mightily independent - but that's Australia) and we struggle on with direct business funding

In Australia we also have levies on telco sector to fund a range of activities which support more equal participation in telco regulatory activities (which reminds me to talk to ICANN about AuDA consultations!!!! so I have included Teresa in this reply) 

as I see the existing outreach activities of ICANN in regard to supply-side market participants, I think this should be balanced by outreach and support for the consumers

cheers

Rosemary


-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-NCUC on behalf of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Fri 11/12/2010 2:30 AM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC adoption by November 24
 
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<mailto:philip.sheppard at aim.be>>
Date: 10 November 2010 03:36:14 EST
To: <gnso-osc at icann.org<mailto: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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101112/73bac769/attachment-0001.html>