[LINK] RFC: Governance of ICANN

[Adam Todd]

At 16:00 15/11/2004 +1100, Roger Clarke wrote:

>I'm trying to fling together a list of 'ongoing key issues with ICANN'.

I found a few in the Supreme Court :)

>My orientation is 'the public interest'.  My presumption is that business 
>and government constituencies have substantial representation and policy 
>impact, but that the public that use the Internet and are affected by it 
>do not.

ICANN *WAS* suppose to be representative of the public, however the process 
was hijacked in 1998 and is representative of commercial interests and profits.

>The idea is to find a Research Assistant who could put a few paras. of 
>flesh and URLs on them.

I can offer answers to questions :)

>The following is a very tentative list.  Suggestions are very welcome.
>
>Note that I'm trying to focus on governance of ICANN,

Governance OF ICANN?  There is none.  It reports to no one.

>and only on *specific* issues to the extent that they're either very 
>important, or their resolution could contribute to meaningful improvements 
>to ICANN's structure and processes.
>
>
>          Possible Topics for a Research Assistant to Work On
>
>-   the extent of public visibility and the balance of ICANN's:
>     -   constitution

Not visible and not easily argued.

>     -   structures

Bureaucratic at best, highly political at worst.

>     -   electoral processes

Elimination of key players by weird events!

>-   the extent of public visibility of ICANN's:
>     -   meeting agendas

Limited and often held in places that public can not easily access.  In 
fact most require accreditation at the discretion of the ICANN 
Board.  There is no financially accommodating way to allow the public to 
represent it's views and never has been.

Not even an online chat or process for input during discussion.

>     -   working papers

Normally released or adversities when it's near too late to respond.

>     -   decisions

Very publicly visible.  You like it or lump it.

>     -   rationale for decisions

No visibility.  You like the decision or you can lump it, generally it 
appears there is no correspondence entered into.

>     esecially the extent to which these are smothered by
>     sub-committee and working party arrangements

Extensive and totally obfusticating.

>-   mechanisms for and extent of public participation in ICANN, incl.
>     -   the constituencies represented on the ICANN Board

Has there been an election since 1999?

>     -   the constituencies represented on subsidiary organisations

Limited to those who might happen to find out, rather than those who were 
involved in the 1996-1998 process that lead to the creation.

>     -   the nature of the At Large Committee and its activities

A way to cause confusion, delays and limited feedback.

>     -   any reference to public fora that debates issues that come
>         before ICANN and its constituent bodies, e.g. ICANNWatch

ICANNWatch is about the only one that has any ongoing value.  There are a 
few others GNSO being one but it's less organised.

>     -   any other arrangements

There are??