[ga] Evaluating Participation
In the "Case for Reform", Stuart Lynn made the following observation: "It is
clear to me that, without the steady and committed participation of all the
major operational bodies of the Internet... this particular private sector
model will not be able to fulfill its mission."
I wish to draw the attention of the ERC to this issue of "steady and
committed participation". One only needs to look at list traffic to evaluate
the degree of relevant participation by "major bodies". The following is a
compilation of the quantity of comments posted to major lists during this
last week (August 1-7):
000 -- Transfers Task Force List
000 -- IDN Task Force List
000 -- IP Constituency List
000 -- ERC Public Forum
001 -- UDRP Task Force List
007 -- Whois Task Force List
010 -- ICANN-Europe Forum
013 -- NCDNHC List
014 -- Names Council List
046 -- Registrars List
148 -- General Assembly Forum
215 -- ICANN Public Forums
305 -- icannatarge.com Lists
The general public submitted 678 comments to the lists this week, ten times
more than the aggregate of all of the constituencies.
In spite of all the plans to restructure, reorganize, and refocus the
organization, one thing remains clear -- the "major bodies" who have voting
rights and representation are still not participating as anticipated, while
the general public without such voting rights and without such representation
is actively discussing ICANN-related matters.
This raises the issue: why are we continuing to provide voting rights and
representation to those that are no longer viable contributing
constituencies? Why are we seeking to reward those whose lack of
participation denies ICANN the promise of properly fulfilling its mission?
Shouldn't there be legitimate criteria by which the viability of a
constituency in the GNSO can be assessed? Don't we owe it to ourselves to
decommission non-performing, non-participating, and non-contributing groups?
Let's face it... the performance of many constituencies as participants has
been pathetic -- and even worse... there are no signs of improvement on the
horizon. If this institution is going to be reformed, such problems cannot
continue to be swept under the rug... doing so only postpones the inevitable
demise of ICANN. Just look at the "official" lists in the DNSO wherein
"work" is supposed to get done... it isn't happening, and the public that
could be contributing is excluded from those lists.
The ERC recognized that the size of the Council may change from time to time
as "some constituencies cease to be active". It is time to establish the
necessary benchmarks so that the non-active constituencies (and we all know
who they are) may be eliminated from the mix.
Put them on notice.... shape up, or ship out. You can start by requiring
publicly-archived mailing lists for all constituencies in keeping with the
Corporation's intent to achieve full transparency for itself and its
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html