[ga] Evaluating Participation

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

In the "Case for Reform", Stuart Lynn made the following observation:  "It is 
clear to me that, without the steady and committed participation of all the 
major operational bodies of the Internet... this particular private sector 
model will not be able to fulfill its mission."  

I wish to draw the attention of the ERC to this issue of "steady and 
committed participation".  One only needs to look at list traffic to evaluate 
the degree of relevant participation by "major bodies".  The following is a 
compilation of the quantity of comments posted to major lists during this 
last week (August 1-7):

000 -- Transfers Task Force List
000 -- IDN Task Force List
000 -- IP Constituency List
000 -- ERC Public Forum
001 -- UDRP Task Force List
007 -- Whois Task Force List
010 -- ICANN-Europe Forum
013 -- NCDNHC List
014 -- Names Council List
046 -- Registrars List
148 -- General Assembly Forum
215 -- ICANN Public Forums
305 -- icannatarge.com Lists

The general public submitted 678 comments to the lists this week, ten times 
more than the aggregate of all of the constituencies.

In spite of all the plans to restructure, reorganize, and refocus the 
organization, one thing remains clear -- the "major bodies" who have voting 
rights and representation are still not participating as anticipated, while 
the general public without such voting rights and without such representation 
is actively discussing ICANN-related matters.

This raises the issue:  why are we continuing to provide voting rights and 
representation to those that are no longer viable contributing 
constituencies?  Why are we seeking to reward those whose lack of 
participation denies ICANN the promise of properly fulfilling its mission?  
Shouldn't there be legitimate criteria by which the viability of a 
constituency in the GNSO can be assessed?  Don't we owe it to ourselves to 
decommission non-performing, non-participating, and non-contributing groups?

Let's face it... the performance of many constituencies as participants has 
been pathetic -- and even worse... there are no signs of improvement on the 
horizon.  If this institution is going to be reformed, such problems cannot 
continue to be swept under the rug... doing so only postpones the inevitable 
demise of ICANN.  Just look at the "official" lists in the DNSO wherein 
"work" is supposed to get done... it isn't happening, and the public that 
could be contributing is excluded from those lists.

The ERC recognized that the size of the Council may change from time to time 
as "some constituencies cease to be active".  It is time to establish the 
necessary benchmarks so that the non-active constituencies (and we all know 
who they are) may be eliminated from the mix.  

Put them on notice.... shape up, or ship out.  You can start by requiring 
publicly-archived mailing lists for all constituencies in keeping with the 
Corporation's intent to achieve full transparency for itself and its 
subordinate entities.

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