sorry, I meant below as my reaction under this thread.. - - - - Spot on Milton! See: http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00627.html It was just after the Board had decided to do away with the work we'd done on JAS-WG. However, they later on changed their mind and "encouraged us to carry on with the work." - - - - On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Avri: > > This report makes me vaguely uneasy and even troubled. I know that > “outreach” and “participation” are supposed to be unqualified Good Things in > this crazy environment, but I find that to be extremely naïve, for reasons I > will explain below. > > > > In my mind, ICANN is a governance institution and therefore its task is to > formulate policies and rules that bring a constructive order to a fairly > narrow area of Internet activity (domain names). In order to do that, it has > to put into place a representational and participatory structure that > facilitates making good, effective, legitimate rules and policies. But the > representational structure should be populated by an autonomous civil > society, not by the governance institution. If ICANN’s activities actually > have an impact on people’s lives, and it gives those impacted people > meaningful forms of influence over what it does, THEY WILL PARTICIPATE. They > will recruit themselves. > > > > ICANN is not, or should not be, an evangelical Church with a missionary > wing that views enlarging its membership as an inherently good thing. ICANN > should stick to its narrow, technical policy mission. > > > > The report proposes a standing “Outreach Task Force” (OTF) that is rather > large, about 40-50 people. It holds up the IGF MAG as a (positive!) example, > something that might surprise those of us who have dealt with the MAG and > the intense representational politics that have swirled around it. Not to > mention the factional divisions that have mostly paralyzed it. This OTF is > then going to spend a lot of money supporting the activities of a large > group as they recruit people into the GNSO. > > > > The report also uses the ITU’s Youth outreach program as an example. But > here again, if you know that program, it is basically a > marketing/educational program, designed to bolster the ITU’s future. True, > it has legitimate educational purposes, as the young people who enter that > program do have enhanced opportunities to learn about international policy > making in telecommunications. But in ITU’s case there is no confusion > between who are the real members to whom the organizational is accountable > (governments) and the “recruits” who receive this education. In ICANN the > line is blurry. > > > > To express my view in the simplest way, I don’t think ICANN, Inc. should be > doing, or should be actively managing, popular “outreach.” I think the > appropriate level of participation and recruiting should be driven by the > external people who have a stake in what ICANN does. Human rights groups who > want ICANN to pay more attention to freedom of expression or privacy should > recruit supporters and bring them into ICANN. Business/trademark groups who > want ICANN to pay more attention to their interests should do the same. What > really matters here is: > > > > a) how fair and balanced ICANN’s board and board selection process is, > > b) how fair and balanced the GNSO’s representational structure is, > > c) how well ICANN translates participation into good policies, > > d) whether ICANN has the appropriate accountability mechanisms binding it > to its stakeholders’ will. > > > > ICANN should concentrate on those things as a priority, not on some blind > rush to “get more people involved.” > > > > At best, getting more people involved in a flawed structure is useless > because the newcomers quickly learn that the process is dysfunctional or > their efforts have no impact, and they leave. At worst, “getting more people > involved” becomes a way for the Corporation staff to recruit malleable > drones who can be used to undermine or bypass the real stakeholders. > > > > Note that ICANN Inc. is currently paralyzing new constituency formation in > NCSG because it won’t approve a charter that was approved overwhelmingly by > its noncommercial participants. Note how it uses the alleged lack of > widespread participation in NCUC to manipulate our representation in GNSO, > but ignores a far less diverse showing in the CSG. Those two things by > themselves should make us deeply skeptical of any ICANN-driven “outreach” > program. In the past two years, NCUC did more successful outreach – at no > cost to ICANN – than any other group. And yet what did it get us? Is > “outreach” really the goal here, or something else? > > > > Note that this report proposes to use the South Summer School on Internet > Governance (SSIG) as a “recruiting” tool. This bothers me. Currently, these > wonderful summer schools conceived by Kleinwachter are autonomous > institutions. They already educate and sometimes get people interested > enough to get involved. If we make them tools or arms of the GNSO, via ICANN > funding or pushing ICANN recruiting efforts, their independence is lost, and > so is most of their value. > > > > I repeat my main premise: insofar as ICANN’s activities actually have an > impact on people’s lives, and it gives those impacted people meaningful > forms of influence over what it does, THEY WILL PARTICIPATE, you will not > need an “outreach” program. Investing major amounts of time and money in > “outreach” instead of in fixing ICANN’s representation and accountability is > a big mistake, a diversion. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:08 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach > Recommendations - for OSC adoption by November 24 > > > > Comments welcome so i know what i think. > > > > thanks > > > > a. > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *"Philip Sheppard" <[log in to unmask]> > > *Date: *10 November 2010 03:36:14 EST > > *To: *<[log in to unmask]> > > *Subject: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC > adoption by November 24* > > > > > > Fellow OSC members, > > please find attached a recommendation on outreach from the CSG team, > chaired by Olga Cavalli, in an effort led by Debbie Hughes. > > It is revised based on the most recent round of input earlier from the > OSC and supersedes the version sent to the OSC on 19 October 2010. > > It is a redline version. > > Let me have your comments with a view to OSC adoption by November 24 . > > > > After which, assuming a positive reception, we will send it to the GNSO > Council. > > > > Philip > > OSC Chair > > > -- regards, Alex Gakuru http://www.mwenyeji.com Hosting, surprise yourself!