[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN61 Blog Post

[Michael Karanicolas]

Hi all,

I'm attaching my blog report from ICANN 61 below, and as a Word doc. Happy
to answer any follow up questions on any of the sessions or components that
I was involved with.

Best,

Michael Karanicolas

--------------

ICANN61 Report:  Michael Karanicolas



*"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the
same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice
as fast as that!" *

*– *Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There”



ICANN61 was a busy week for me. In addition to NCUC outreach activities, I
participated in the ICANN leadership course as an NCSG representative, in
the Workstream 2 Plenary as the Rapporteur for the Transparency Subgroup,
and in the PDP Review of Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) as one of a
small number of non-commercial stakeholders in a group that is heavily
dominated by representatives from the IPC. It was also my first meeting as
Co-Chair of the Cross Community Working Party on Human Rights, which
required me to help lead a session charting our path forward, as well as a
presentation to the Governmental Advisory Committee on their options for
carrying out human rights impact assessments. Separate from this, I led a
Cross-Community Session on Open Data and Transparency at ICANN. I also
represented the NCUC at a GNSO working session, and at a direct meeting
(technically, it was a “*fika* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fika_(Sweden)>
*”*) with Göran Marby, the ICANN CEO.



The meeting with Göran was particularly interesting, since the informal
setting allowed for a more interesting back and forth than might typically
be heard during public Q&A sessions. Based on consultations with the list,
we focused on four major themes: GDPR, budgeting, human rights at ICANN,
and transparency. On the GDPR, Göran noted that the required changes would
make it more difficult to combat spam, and queried where that challenge fit
into the proposed solutions. On the budgeting question, he emphasized that
pushing to a two-year budgeting cycle would make things run far more
efficiently, and the challenges that they faced in creating a balanced
budget when a significant proportion of the spending was outside of their
control. Göran largely stepped back from the human rights question, noting
that this was an issue which the community needed to decide for itself
(apart from the HRIA of ICANN as an organization, which was already
underway). On transparency, we raised two issues. First, we noted that
responses to DIDP queries typically came in the form of custom-drafted
responses, rather than a delivery of original documentation, which is both
inefficient and largely out of step with common practice in governmental
right to information systems, the purpose of which is to provide an
unfiltered insight into official processes. Göran responded by noting that
ICANN is not a government (which is true, of course, but sort of dodges the
issue), though he also suggested that this would be a good matter to raise
with the Complaints Officer. We also asked about transparency at ICANN
legal. Göran responded by claiming that their transparency was already
extremely strong, while acknowledging that I (and others in the ICANN
community) felt otherwise and suggesting that a future *fika* between him,
myself and John Jeffrey might go a long way to solving the disagreement.



In all, ICANN61 was the most hectic (and productive!) ICANN meeting I’ve
had so far. But, of all of the discussions and debates that took place, the
one that really stands out in my memory is a back and forth over the
efficacy and utility of what we do.



In the closing moments of an NCUC outreach event, Adam Peake of ICANN staff
asked us what percentage of the time we thought that we “won”. His
perspective, he noted, was that non-commercial voices were victorious in
nearly every debate they had engaged in since ICANN’s founding. Needless to
say, this position wasn’t shared by many non-commercial veterans in the
room. The prevalent opinions were far more pessimistic of our role and
ability to impact change, pointing to rearguard actions to push back
against policies which would undermine privacy and freedom of expression.



I didn’t say this at the time, but in retrospect, I think that Lewis
Carroll’s Red Queen can sometimes be a good analogy for what we do at ICANN
– running as hard as we can to prevent things from going backwards. It’s a
frustrating position to be in, but in some ways it’s the natural result of
being in a system which, while billed as multistakeholder, too often acts
like an adversarial process, where non-commercial voices are pitted against
interests with vastly more resources and manpower behind them. It’s also a
consequence of ICANN’s continuous policy-making processes, where even a
“victory” may only last until the issue is reopened.



In general though, I find myself relatively optimistic on the potential for
non-commercial voices to impact change at ICANN. In the short amount of
time that I’ve been here, I’ve seen progress on several important issues
flowing from our contributions. Moreover, even if we don’t “win”, our
presence can lead to results that are better than they might have been had
NCUC members not provided a voice for human rights concerns. In other
words, whether or not we approve of the end result, our role in the process
is vital. It’s important to stay engaged with ICANN – even if too much time
here can leave you mad as a hatter.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180328/03a2092b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Karanicolas ICANN61 Report.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16525 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180328/03a2092b/attachment.docx>