[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
sam at lanfranco.net
Thu Aug 29 16:42:15 UTC 2019
I hope this is not an imposition. We have segued into a discussion of
participation and I would like to add a comment or two. The first is
that within its work multistakeholder ICANN starts with an endemic
imbalance. Those stakeholder groups with an economic self-interest in
issues are always there, and usually paid to be there. GAC, with its
political interests, operates under constraints that they are partially
uncomfortable with. GAC both partially adjusts and seeks other forms of
leverage, within ICANN’s remit, with efforts at leverage from elsewhere.
The participation of the ngo and civil society sector suffers from the
fact that it does not represent sector, instead it's self-selected
members participate */in the interests of/* the issues important to that
The result is a three-legged working process and policy stool where the
leg representing economic self-interest (contract and non-contracted
business parties) is strong, determined and well resourced. The GAC leg
is well resourced but constrained by GAC’s advisory role. The public
interest leg (NCSG, NCUC, NPOC) is constrained by its volunteer labor,
lack of resources, and -in some sense- while engagement is well-meaning,
has no direct accountability to those whose interests it represents.
To the credit of all, much of the working group process is an effort to
reach clarity around a consensus outcome. Much of what we put on the
table gets a fair hearing prior to acceptance or rejection. This
labor-intensive process gives favorable weight to the business sector,
with its paid engagement, and less weight to ngo/civil society sector
inputs that depends on volunteer labor. There is no clear or easy way to
address this imbalance, one which ICANN org downplays to bolster its
multistakeholder image. The differential resource bases and -at best-
well meaning efforts as representation of public interest will continue
to complicate engagement in the working group process.
In my view, the likely long run outcome will be more of Internet
governance policy making taking place elsewhere, and a tighter ring
fence around what is understood as the ICANN remit.
On 8/29/2019 10:35 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> Yes, Elliot, and I do appreciate your response and your clarification.
> I learned a long time ago to watch the attendance at all meetings, but
> also to look at who posts to see who may be very actively engaged,
> but did a quick analysis of the attendance rates of each of the
> members, and also the participants, and I also looked at who posts.
> That took a lot of time but I thought it worthwhile, as my training in
> Organizational Development taught me to loo for the obvious and the
> non obvious.
> Fortunately, the attendance records help us to document who is
> engaging. As do the posting records, which show the active engagement
> of several of the members and also some participants.
> I think there are multiple indicators of commitment and interest:
> e.g. people don't show up on calls, due to travel or conflicts with
> other meetings, *but *they read and post comments, which shows their
> active engagement.
> e.g. people actively fill in the doodle polls so that a meeting with
> the most attendance can be selected
> e.g. people who can't attend send regrets, so that it is clear they
> are participating, even if not able to attend a particular meeting.
> We have been competing with the EPDP and I am not being critical, just
> making an observation but for many, it has sort of sucked all the air
> out of the room of participation and personally, I have to respect
> that, while also striving to make sure that the community has the
> participation that it expected. Certainly, we have had great Board
> liaison, great staff support, dedicated co chairs, and a core group of
> But, in some ways, this is why I want a second public comment period,
> although I'd prefer a 30 day period for public comments.
> Again, thanks for your reponse.
> *From:* Elliot Noss <enoss at tucows.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2019 9:27 AM
> *To:* Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
> “Playing along” was not meant in a derogatory way. In fact it was
> intended as a positive. Apologies if it came across otherwise. I
> should more accurately have said “still participating”. The people who
> join and lurk are many. Those who stick it out and work are few. That
> speaks positively of the few not the many. Hope that clarifies.
> Iirc this started with something like 60+ people. We are probably 20%
> of that active at this point.
>> On Aug 29, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com
>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> Elliot, can you clarify what you mean by "playing along".
>> I am a little challenged by that comment, given the amount of time
>> that I devote to this CCWG.
>> *From:*Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Elliot
>> Noss <enoss at tucows.com <mailto:enoss at tucows.com>>
>> *Sent:*Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:08 AM
>> *To:*CCWG Auction Proceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
>> <mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
>> I do want you all to know I am still following along. This is all WAY
>> TOO MUCH in my view (both experts on review and this de minimis role
>> for the community wrapped in another convoluted process) but I
>> respect others opinions and efforts.
>> If others agree with me I would love to hear, just to know I am not
>> alone. I am also not sure if we are now not down to a very small
>> group that is still playing along.
>>> On Aug 28, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com
>>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>> agree with Maureen and Sam.
>>> cumulative could be read to mean that each project is reviewed. NOT
>>> what we are agreeing on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds