Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

on 11/25/01 3:55 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com at DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> It will never become more than it currently is because
> individually its members are not prepared to make a commitment to necessary
> involvement -- even those GA members that ran for ICANN Board seats would not
> commit to actually showing up at an ICANN meeting.

I understand the frustration and sense of disappointment you must be feeling
at this time and while I can agree that trying to do business with moral and
ethical cripples is a singularly unpleasant experience, I cannot agree that
it would make any difference if the entire GA shows up for these meetings or
not. My reasons include the following:-

1. If ICANN was ever intended to be a bottom-up, consensus building
organization, it would not now be run by an appointed 6 member Executive
Committee that has all the powers of the corporation at its disposal,
including over its finances. This evidence is staring the GA in the face.

2. ICANN is a monumental failure in industry self-regulation, including with
respect to the separation of the .com registry/ registrar, the registrar
transfer agreement, UDRP, Inclusive Roots, dot.info, dot.biz. dot.aero and
the dot.pro fiascos. Any success it claims for itself is entirely due to the
fact that the internet was always going to be popular despite mismanagement.

3. ICANN defeats reasoned opposition by moving goal posts. No amount of
people getting together f2f is going to overcome that winning strategy.

4. The GA has taken on the role of being the internet industry's critic.
Telling a person who does not want to hear it that they have a problem draws
one of two responses - denial that a problem exists, or insistence that the
problem is yours and not theirs. In other words, hanging out ICANN's dirty
laundry in public does not mean they will buy your washing machine, however
you approach them.

You also claim that the GA as a whole has failed to follow working methods
that could have produced tangible results. I have been thinking about this,
and have carefully reviewed those used by others in the community.  Contrary
to what you state, and based on methods used that have actually proved
successful, I would say that the most likely way to achieve tangible results
would be to completely ignore the Bylaws and use a combination of tactics
from the following list:-

revisionism (useful for making discreet amendments to published documents on
community websites), denying input from selected groups (useful to ensure
constituencies recommend policies that fit with master plan), witholding
information (in particular financial expenditure/ budgetary cuts that cannot
be substantiated), claiming a "narrow technical mission" (avoids engagement
in an argument one cannot win), claiming "societal issues" must be given
proper consideration in policy decisions (useful to advance "mission
creep"), claiming lack of adequate representation/ consensus building
procedures (isolates and disarms opponents), issuing a Press Release to
claim wide community support for a new policy (avoids having to produce any
supporting documentation), claiming that ICANN is an evolving process (valid
defense against material evidence of failed policies), denying that ICANN is
a legal enforcing organization (protects the interests of donors that are in
breach of contract), withdrawing Secretariat services (good for sabotaging
the tenure of potentially effective Chairs and Working Groups), creating an
intake committee (filtering device to eliminate unwanted agenda items),
making an announcement to run a particular course of action (useful to
override a resolution that has been passed for an opposite course of action
- only effective if the issue has been ignored for a while), deciding that
the views of 7 - 21 people represents community consensus (reduces the
workload to substantiate desired results/ eliminates assembly input without
the need to restructure) and last but not least, bribing (useful to ensure
the successful outcome of almost anything - including "elections")


It may well be proved right that the only way to make a difference now is to
reform ICANN from the outside, but it would be a mistake to think that ICANN
is willing to give up any of the power it has tasted. It is an empire
builder constrained only by a temporary oversight situation. Once the ccTLDs
are in contract, which seems inevitable, I imagine ICANN will be released
from US jurisdiction and then further resistance can be ignored simply by
moving offshore. 

Your efforts against all of these odds have been amongst the greatest, and
you will always command my highest respect for your tireless efforts and the
endless ways in which you have tried, and tried again and continue to try.
But it's important to understand that what we are dealing with here is not a
failure of the GA, but organized corruption at the highest levels, and it
really is not appropriate to accuse the bottom of a failure that is clearly
the responsibility of those at the opposite end of the organization.

Thank you.

  
Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.) 

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