[ga] ICANN Reform -- Process Issues
If we review the posts made to the Transfers TF since the first of this year,
we can come to the following conclusions:
There have been no postings made by the ISP constituency, none by the IPC,
none by the Non-Commercial constituency representatives that replaced Milton
Mueller, no substantive comments by the BC representative that is not the
Chair, and no postings by the representative of the GA. What does this tell
us? We now have a thoroughly non-representative group in which only six
people are currently participating through written comments, and not one of
them represents the interests of registrants who are most affected by the
issue of transfers.
The TF process only serves to lock in those who choose not to participate,
and manages to exclude everyone else that has good cause to participate...
and even those that can participate do so only in a limited fashion (there
have been more postings made by the Chair's personal executive assistant than
by the ccTLDs and gTLDs combined).
We have been arguing since Day One that registrants need to be included in
the policy-making process, most especially when such policy-making directly
affects their interests. Recently we have seen a number of postings by
Richard Henderson whose organization represents the interests of registrants.
There are other organizations as well that concern themselves with
registrant issues. But none of these organizations has ever been invited to
participate in the process, and every attempt to include such groups has been
rebuffed. Its bad enough that there is no representation for registrants
within either the DNSO or ICANN, but the fact that "interested parties",
whose rights are ostensibly protected under our Bylaws, are routinely refused
"participation" demonstrates how perverse the TF process has become.
This process (denying representation and participation to others that have a
right to be involved) is the hallmark of the BC and several of their allied
constituencies that control the NC. They are at the root of everything that
is wrong, sick, and putrid within the DNSO. Let's not forget how often these
groups acted in concert to deny the possibility of an individual's
constituency. It is this group that has summarily refused to establish open
working groups, and which has steadfastly refused to even "discuss" the
restructuring of the DNSO as proposed by the membership of the GA. These are
the folks that seek to muzzle the fair and open discussion of ideas so that
only their views may prevail.
If we are to reform the ICANN, we need to take steps to curb the abuse of
power not only at the Board level, but even moreso within the Supporting
Organizations. Members of the GA have no votes within the Council of the
DNSO, and yet our active membership (that is not affliliated with any given
constituency) far exceeds the membership of most other constituent groups.
We have been denied representation in the decision-making process, and have
witnessed the steady erosion of our remaining rights. Instead of
constituencies participating in the large open working groups of the GA, we
now have only solitary GA participants in groups of the NC.
It is not time to "improve" the TF process. It is time to thoroughly
repudiate it as an artifice designed solely to limit input and to manipulate
results. When Stuart Lynn talks about the problems within ICANN, we all know
that the blame for many of those problems lays right at the doorstep of the
Names Council. Most of their Task Forces have been doing a pathetic job and
the guidance being offered to the Board is practically useless. The
Structure TF is a joke, the Review TF was a disaster, and the Transfers TF
has accomplished next-to-nothing in the last five months.
We are now at the point where we all need to actively discuss the reform or
replacement of ICANN. The Non-Commercial constituency called for a working
group to involve everyone in the process, but again the Council vetoed that
idea and returned to a Council Task Force approach. Having listened to the
last TF teleconference, I am now fully convinced that this TF will also fail
miserably, and will offer guidance only at such a high level of generality
that its recommendations will be practically useless.
This Council is not prepared to learn from its mistakes (the DNSO Review was
sufficent proof of that). We must advise the Board that eliminating this
Council in particular is in the best interest of ICANN and long overdue.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html