[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised review/assessment proposal
sam at lanfranco.net
Thu Aug 29 17:06:34 UTC 2019
*/Mea culpa/.* I did fail to give At Large its well deserved and proper
due. It was an omission due to haste. /*Mea Culpa*/.
I should stress that the overall engagement of those representing the
Public Interest is impressive given the constraints they operate under.
On 8/29/2019 1:00 PM, Judith Hellerstein wrote:
> HI Sam,
> Sorry to wade in to this discussion which is not really on target but
> felt that I needed to correct some assumptions that Sam has made. Sam
> LanFranco, I respect your time and contributions, but in your
> description you left out At Large, we are representing the Public
> Interest which you have neglected to mention. Our volunteers (Members
> and Participants within CCWG-Auction Proceeds) spend countless hours
> working on these issues and get no reimbursement of compensation for
> our times spent, but if you look at the attendance and contribution
> measures we are always there at these meetings but the same could not
> be said for NCSG contingency. Our volunteers are deeply committed to
> these issues and many of them make time to come to these meetings,
> taking time out of their work day, waking up very early in the morning
> or staying up very late at night, so we beg to differ on your slight.
> We are not paid by our jobs for any of the countless hours we put in
> representing the public interest, but many of us do this because we
> are so passionate about it
> While many of us in At Large agree with your statement below, we still
> manage to find the time to show up and contribute.
> "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
> Speaking for myself
> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
> Hellerstein & Associates
> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
> E-mail:Judith at jhellerstein.com Website:www.jhellerstein.com
> Linked In:www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
> On 8/29/2019 12:42 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> 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 sector.
>> 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.
>> Sam L
>> 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 participants.
>>> 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
>>> “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
>>>> 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.
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honored in an
unjust state" -Confucius
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus), Econ, York U., CANADA
email: sam at lanfranco.net Skype: slanfranco
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds