[ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

The Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group has proposed 
institutionalizing an abysmal failure -- the Task Force Concept.  These task 
forces will continue to produce poor policy guidance, only now they will do 
so even faster. 

We will continue to receive pompous self-serving constituency reports from 
groups like the BC that will state "The BC is in large part in agreement 
with… or, the BC believes… or, the BC supports…" with absolutely no 
documentation of BC discussions on the issue.  This constituency, like 
several others, including the gTLDs and the ISPs, refuse to maintain a 
publicly archived discussion list.   They do not believe in abiding by the 
ICANN Bylaws on transparency "to the maximum extent feasible".  They believe 
that they can continue to flaunt the Bylaws even while criticizing the Board 
for its failure to conduct fully open and transparent Board meetings.

Other constituencies, such as the NCDNHC and the IPC, will have their Council 
members tender remarks such as "It is the position of…" even when there is 
absolutely no record of any dialogue on their lists relative to the topic at 
hand.  Neither will they post the minutes of their teleconferences, nor the 
record of any discussion held by their excom or adcom --  in short, we will 
continue to see nothing but more of the same, only now at an expedited pace.

The truth of the matter is that, with rare exceptions (such as within the 
Registrar Constituency), discussion is not happening at the constituency 
level.  And frankly, of what value is a constituency if its members don't 
participate?  An organization sends in its membership dues, and then we don't 
hear from them until they decide to take a junket to an ICANN meeting at some 
interesting venue, and even then these folks have little to contribute since 
they haven't kept up with the day-to-day activities of the organization.  
Sure, it adds to the prestige of the organization to state on their website 
that they are member of such-and-such an ICANN constituency, but of what 
value is it to us?  

How many times have we heard the BC extol the virtues of one their members, 
the International Chamber of Commerce, that "outreaches to over 1.5 million 
companies worldwide"?  Yet never once have we heard the opinions of this 
group on anything.  No position papers have ever been submitted, there is no 
record of any commentary, and no indication that this group does anything 
other than remit a membership payment to the BC.

Other constituencies that are more transparent with a membership roster that 
includes almost two hundred organizations, such as the NCDNHC, are equally 
perpetrating a fraud.  They have almost no "paying members", and according to 
the recently published ledger of DNSO Contributions, two out of three of 
their current Council representatives haven't even made a membership payment 
on behalf of their own organizations.  By what right do they thereby claim to 
be a constituency member, or for that matter to be able to "represent" the 
constituency if they are not even a member in good standing?

Only 23 organizations out of 187 in the NCDNHC made a membership payment 
according to the ledger.  They don't pay, and most don't participate in any 
dialogue at the constituency level, and when they do it's never on topics 
that directly deal with DNSO policy issues.  When was the last time you saw 
any NCDNHC members discuss WLS, or Transfers, or Deletes, or IDN on their 
discussion list?  

Discussion of policy issues is in fact happening not at the constituency 
level, but rather at a different locale, the DNSO General Assembly.  Further, 
participants in these discussions are almost never members of any given 
constituency, and yet these interested and involved members of the community 
are the ones being excluded from direct and equal participation in the Names 
Policy Development Process.  

This is not Reform.  This is again denying representation to the broader 
At-Large community in favor of entrenched special interest groups.  

If these groups would actually participate in the task force process, then 
there might be some basis for proposing modifications to the current system.  
But we have seen the record of their involvement.  Just look at the transfers 
task force, or the IDN task force as examples that highlight the 
non-participation of constituency conscripts.  These are folks that don't 
want to be there, that won't participate in any meaningful fashion, and that 
are stuck on these TFs because their constituency had to assign somebody to 
be there.

A task force of six members, when half won't participate, is next to useless. 
 When the task force is expanded to two members per constituency, and the 
constituencies still fail to participate (as has already been noted), this is 
a sign that the entire process is defective, and no amount of tinkering will 
fix the situation when some constituencies just don't want to participate.  
In many cases, several of these constituencies just don't have an actual 
membership that is willing to do anything more than show up at an occasional 
ICANN meeting.  Why do you think that the ISPs always have the same members 
on every single task force?  It's probably because their constituency is as 
much of a sham as is the BC constituency - they don't have an involved 
membership, only a few representatives that are stuck on every single 
committee since no one else is willing to do the job.

We have all seen what happens to public comments submitted to task forces.  
We have sufficient proof that they are not even being read.  The opinions of 
the public are of no consequence to those that represent special interest 
groups.  One way or another, only their views will prevail in this system as 
there is no one to advocate for the public view in this process.  Without an 
advocate or representative, the comments of the public will continue to 
wither on the vine, and ICANN will blissfully continue to fail to understand 
why the public is so incensed.  

Participation means nothing if there is no representation.  The views of the 
broader community will continue to be ignored as special interest groups will 
continue to apply their own unique SPIN on the public voice.

This Task Force process is as illegitimate as the Reform itself and it is not 
surprising that Hans Kraaijenbrink and Joe Sims participated in the 
development of this perversion.

There was a time when we believed in the utility of the Open Working Group, 
the collaboration of the At-Large Community with the constituencies in a 
mutual effort to arrive at a consensus-based solution.  This has now been 
replaced with a system that excludes the At-Large, excludes the General 
Assembly, and which continues to advantage incumbent interests at the expense 
of all those that are not properly represented in the ICANN process.  

This plan will, of course, be adopted by the Board, because they have already 
spoon-fed their opinions to the assistance group.  It's just another sign of 
how perverse this organization has become.  The bottom-up is not to be 
trusted to draft their own recommendations… they need to be coached by the 
ICANN Board and its outside Counsel.

This is no more than a charade being played out to entertain the DoC.  I 
can't wait to hear Mary Hewitt's comments on how wonderful it is that ICANN's 
Blueprint is being supported by so many that have come forth with 
implementation suggestions.

Looks like its time to write to the DoC yet again.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html