Dear Alain,
As I understand Mr. Fadi Chehadé speech in Toronto, ICANN policy
will be based on
- consensus
- close cooperation between staff and decision makers
The question is how to implement these principles in real life. Open
discussion looks preferable, ombudsmen is something like ultima ratio.
Today Internet have destroyed the power of trademark owners, I think lot
of people understand, that a company without trademark must have same
rights, as trademark owner company, trademark is a barrier for competition.
I think, first of all necessary to provide simple description of TM+50
situation, with very easy examples, then distribute this information
among ICANN community. Sure, that feedback will help to resolve the
problem.
Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM
On 27.03.2013 22:48, Alain Berranger wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Thank you for that moment of opportunity!
>
> The sharp line in the sand distinction in an organization between policy
> and implementation is arbitrary if you have an independant judiciary
> function or an oversight/regulatory body above the organization.This
> distinction has been "invented" at ICANN to protect GNSO's territory -
> policy - and leaving implementation to "staff"... It is a mine field,
> from what I have seen since I joined ICANN in San José and the
> discussion between policy and implementation is flawed by design.... but
> makes for passionate discussions...and will for a long time to be.
>
> I do not know who the ICANN ombudsman reports to (I have not done the
> research) but his office does not seem to have the authority or the
> resources to dictate to ICANN what to do. It should report to the Board
> in any case and maybe it does? But where is the bigger ICANN oversight?
> How do you move from the current situation, as described by Dan, to a
> truly international organization (some of the very first words of our
> CEO last summer)?
>
> Normally, a corporation or an NGO or a government dept has a policy
> dept which makes evidence-based policy recommendations. These go to the
> Board for decision, weighting in all the factors, internal and external,
> that impact on the mission.
>
> We need to think outside the ICANN box on this one!
>
> Alain
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Alain,
>
> Thanks for the discussion.
>
> First, I think we should file all Ombudsman complaints (and definitely
> recruit allies), though I don't expect it would necessarily be a silver
> bullet solution -- holding it to that standard would make it appear
> ineffective. But it builds a track record, a case that we are trying
> everything pro forma, jumping through the hoops as expected, playing the
> procedural game, the bureaucracy, as specified. We climb the ladder one
> step at a time, appealing to ever greater authorities like in the court
> system. This is the step of establishing facts, formal basis of
> objection, etc.
>
> Next, the difference between what you call closely vested interests and
> principled interests exhibits one well-known characteristic: the
> "collective-action problem". Vested interests tend to be narrow
> interests, whereas principled interests tend to be broad interests.
> Narrow interests that are well-endowed are always at a relative
> advantage
> compared to broadly distributed interests, because while there may be
> enough resources distributed broadly to counteract the concentrated
> resources of narrow interests, there is a much higher cost to
> motivating,
> coordinating and marshaling distributed resources. The cliche that
> comes
> to mind is "herding cats". Especially, since all participation in MS
> processes at ICANN is on a volunteer basis, narrow interests can
> much more
> easily allocate paid resources to this volunteer activity, whereas
> distributed interests have a much harder time making this allocation.
>
> This dynamic has been present at ICANN as long as I've been involved,
> which goes back to 2006. I suspect it has been this way from the
> start --
> it's a structural dynamic that relates to the whole SO organizational
> model.
>
> Soto your question, how does a MS organization balance this inherent
> imbalance in the ability to participate effectively? The big-picture
> answer is that the little guys at the bottom of the pyramid need to be
> given ways to neutralize the resource advantage. Not to be given any
> special advantage above narrow interests, but to play on a level playing
> field.
>
> One obvious tactic is to create formal operational structures that
> enable
> bottom-up participation without doing anything to disadvantage those
> with
> the resources to participate in other ways. There has been some
> effort to
> do so at ICANN, but this is constantly being undermined by the narrow
> interests -- if policy is a "war" then opponents will seek to win
> the war
> any way they can, and that can involve tweaking the rules of the game to
> one's advantage, if they are being systematically set up to reduce one's
> advantage.
>
> So, if there is a structure to provide equitable participation,
> finding an
> ad hoc alternative path to avoid that equity is again to one's
> advantage,
> to the extent that equity is a reduction in influence.
>
> Separation of power in a governance structure is imperative if equity is
> to be maintained. One big problem with ICANN is that there is little
> evidence of the equivalent of an "independent judiciary" in the org
> structure. If there is no distinction between the executive and
> judicial
> functions, then the executive hierarchy is unchecked.
>
> In short, ICANN used a conventional non-profit organizational structure
> with weak oversight from the USG (DoC/NTIA) to create a "bottle" in
> which
> the MSM was intended to operate. A sort of "virtual world" of
> governance.
>
> But within that virtual world of governance, the staff has embedded
> itself
> in policy-making, rather than just being part of the bottle, which was
> presumably what it was intended to do. AIUI, staff was supposed to
> provide infrastructure, not to get involved in the content of MS
> activity.
>
> This Chinese Wall has been breached. So one prerequisite is that staff
> needs to be confined to acting as only the bottle, once again. In order
> for that to happen, there needs to be some independent oversight of
> staff
> to prevent policy-relevant activity.
>
> Several folks have mentioned the policy/implementation split. This is
> part of that problem: implementation can be considered part of the
> bottle,
> but policy must be seen as only "contents" of the bottle. Fudging this
> split is a major way to break through the Chinese Wall. So I think this
> point should be pressed firmly, front and center, not as some sort of
> tangential point.
>
> Another conceptual problem is that ICANN in practice is not just an
> "operational organization" -- the policies it makes can have profound
> political ramifications, and thus politics gets into the picture in
> practice, even if the terms of discourse center on operational
> principles.
>
> There is frequent mention of keeping ICANN to just operational matters
> (I'm definitely a proponent of that mission), however it should be
> acknowledged that such a position is inherently political: it's all
> about
> protecting the broadly-distributed interests against narrow
> interests, and
> the broad-narrow contest is fundamentally political.
>
> I'm afraid I don't have the time to pound on ICANN's org structure
> from a
> detailed theoretical basis (part of that difficulty of resource
> allocation: I don't get paid to do this, and I need to get to do
> *something*,so that competes for my time). I wish I could. The only
> reason I can offer this contribution right now is that I'm traveling and
> currently waiting at the airport for a flight -- one fleeting moment of
> opportunity (more moments on the flight, a bit later).
>
> These are big questions, and deserve big answers. I don't have those
> answers in any detailed form, because that takes a lot of work to make
> one's way through the forest at the individual-tree level.
>
> Suffice it to say that as the MSM at ICANN has "matured" the narrow
> interests have found ways to twist both the bottle and the contents to
> their systematic advantage, which the MSM was intended to neutralize
> (since they start with the advantage naturally, without special
> efforts to
> privilege them).
>
>
> At this point, we take the system as it stands and do everything
> possible
> to get it to work, but as I said earlier, I think we should be
> prepared to
> address everything -- the bottle and not just the contents -- to
> push for
> the distributed-interest agenda.
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> On Wed, March 27, 2013 8:45 am, Alain Berranger wrote:
> > Dear Robin, dear Colleagues:
> >
> > I agree that GNSO should file too... but will they (Maria's
> question)? Two
> > complaints (GNSO + NCSG) are better than one (Avri's statement)...
> >
> > 3 questions:
> >
> > 1) From my little experience, I find the ICANN Ombudsman process
> > ineffective - it is time consuming (we are volunteers/the other
> side is
> > paid), a lot of pain for usually not much gain! Not saying we
> should not
> > do
> > it, just wondering out loud if we have a chance at all of being
> > successful?
> > or even partially successful? or if we should invest our time in other
> > ways?
> >
> > 2) Robin, I fully understand your TM arguments and they make sense
> to me
> > as
> > a non-specialist. Can you please elaborate a bit on who the
> "*powerful
> > political interests"* you refer to are? This may help me and
> others at the
> > base of the NCSG pyramid understand the context and the issue
> better...
> >
> > 3) Did Maria fill a complaint to the Ombudsman? and where is it at
> now?
> >
> > 4) I also have a point of view or perhaps an hypothesis to share, from
> > many
> > years of applied MS practice funding developmental and applied policy
> > research in developing countries - may not be relevant but here it is
> > anyway for feedback and reflexion...
> >
> > I see the MS process as one of fundamental inclusion and
> participation...
> > It is more relevant than ever because of the internet and the networks
> > that
> > spring from it...
> >
> > ...the more you are at the bottom of the pyramid ($, knowledge, assets
> > like
> > land ownership, cash, access to resources, etc...) the more you seek
> > participation as a way of climbing up the pyramid (getting
> yourself out of
> > poverty). The higher you are in the pyramid, the less you welcome
> > participation because it is disruptive at the very least.
> >
> > Inherent to this "MS model" is the power struggle between closely
> vested
> > interests (in our case the CHP and part of the NCHP) and higher
> level or
> > principled interests (in our case the rest of NCHP). Not that
> there are
> > not closely vested interests as well as principled interests
> everywhere in
> > an MS organization, including ICANN.
> >
> > Closely vested interests are very time sensitive (profits, status and
> > privileges are lessened by indecision and ambiguity - the rules of the
> > game
> > are not clear driving the the "powerful political interests"
> crazy!) while
> > principled interests are less time sensitive (although short term
> costs
> > are
> > usually huge too) because they are universal.
> >
> > So here comes a question: How does an *operational organization* like
> > ICANN
> > wishing to become better at MS behavior (we can assume that anyway
> for the
> > eternal optimist) resolves the issue of closely vested vs. principled
> > interests?
> >
> > They are by nature in tension and should be... What is essential is to
> > keep
> > a balance... For instance, taking just one of the financial
> dimensions, it
> > is the DNS supply side that keeps feeding extra cash into ICANN
> and the
> > DNS
> > demand side does not have the means to bring this in balance,
> although it
> > is the market.... it is a bit of a class struggle (or concentration of
> > power differentials on the supply and demand sides) in the sense
> that if
> > you do not keep this delicate balance the system will eventually
> fail. It
> > is a matter of time!
> >
> > I for one would like to see ICANN survive as an MS organization, being
> > able
> > to keep the "rapport de forces" in equilibrium.
> >
> > I would love to hear a criticism of this model's assumption and also
> > perhaps if it can help in bringing back balance... or is it simply a
> > theoretical treatment?
> >
> > Best, Alain
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Horacio T. Cadiz <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> >> I support filing a case.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bombim Cadiz
> >> *******************************************
> >> * Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) -- *
> >> * No windows. No gates. It is open. *
> >> * No Bill. It is Free. *
> >> *******************************************
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> > Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
> >
> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
> > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> <http://www.chasquinet.org>
> > Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> > O:+1 514 484 7824 <tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704 7824
> <tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824>
> > Skype: alain.berranger
> >
> >
> > AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> > Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
> > ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
> > destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le
> remettre au
> > destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
> > interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
> > reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être
> joint
> > ou
> > si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en
> informer
> > sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci.
> Merci de
> > votre coopération.
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the
> exclusive use
> > of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by
> anyone
> > other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person
> responsible
> > for
> > forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
> > distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in
> whole or
> > in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have
> received this
> > e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this
> e-mail and
> > destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> <http://www.chasquinet.org>
> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>
>
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
> ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
> destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre
> au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
> interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
> reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint
> ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en
> informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de
> celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
> use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by
> anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person
> responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly
> prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of
> this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or
> if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately
> and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
>
--
Grigori Saghyan
PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
|
