>To: "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Jean Camp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >As friends, or at least a collegial colleague, of people on both sides of >what began as a cooperative process and has become a series of sometimes >personal battles I believe I offer an useful perspective on ICANN. > >In organizations which are participatory people are far happier with the >outcome than in organizations which are not participatory regardless of the >facts of the outcome. Winners and losers are happier and more define >themselves in the first category. In short the problem with ICANN has been >overwhelmingly ne of participation. > >There has been anger at ICANN that has further mired a struggling >organization which is attempting to met an ill-defined mandate in >unrealistic conditions created by flawed Federal oversight. Ironically two >of these problems -- the anger and the struggling -- could be solved by >increased participation. ICANN has tried to solve its problems itself >without reaching out to other organizations, beyond the notable and >admirable exceptions of ISOC and IETF. For example, one way in which the >problem of franchise could have been solved would be to have other >organizations offer cycles on their servers, simultaneoulsy splitting the >load and offering opportunities to participate in a distributed manner. >Neither the ACM nor MIT nor IEEE have been contacted with such a request, >to my knowledge. Two of those mentioned are large membership-based >organizations which have extensive experience in international elections. >All three have technical legitimacy. Beowolf could have been or could be >helpful, harnessing the strength of the Linux users community. > >While it may seem odd to advocate an offering envelope-stuffing and >cycle-sinking opportunities to those who now seemed to be entrenched as >opponents; I believe that in fact such an action would covert opponents to >participants. There are things besides rage to be seen in the previous >letter including passion and commitment. > >In fact, it seems that some are opponents because it is the only role which >is structurally open in ICANN. As a result ther are people who would seem >natural supporters of ICANN who have been forced to choose between a role >in the opposition and no role at all. As such, some can participate as >partners or perceive exclusion and eventually, inevitably, be forced into >opposition as the only available role. > >At a recent Harvard workshop on markets, governance, and globalization I >returned to find that the final note from the day before remained on the >top of my pad, "participation itself is happiness." Going back one page I >found that the sentence began, "Regardless of the final outcome.." > >The importance of participation in long term legitimacy cannot be >overstated. The less participation the less legitimacy among losers AND >winners. Regardless of the outcome those who have not participated see >themselves as losers in a closed and exclusionary process. And I believe >that is why ICANN seems unable to make many willing to offer support, >regardless of rulings and outcomes. > >The closed nature of the nominations committee, the monotonic decrease in >number of popular board members, and the lack of volunteer recruitment have >severely damaged the legitimacy of ICANN. Not because they will lead >necessarily to outcomes which would be unacceptable from any quarter, but >because the reduced participation reduces the acceptability of any outcome. >No outcome can alter the fact of a closed process. An engineering focus on >outcomes over process is often the only correct and appropriate focus. But >in the case of ICANN it has proven woefully narrow. Transparency in the >engineering sense means that a process is so seamless as to be invisible to >the system user. In the governance sense transparency is exactly the >opposite -- transparency means users can see each and every step. ICANN >has been seeking a high transparency system in the engineering sense in >order to produce an efficient and useful mechanism. But transparency in the >governance sense is what is needed. > >Voting and membership are critical elements of participation. This >election, IMHO, could create or destroy the legitimacy of ICANN. > >Please do reopen the registration, allow universities, graduate students, >companies, individuals, and membership organizations to assist in handling >the processing load. You (and I) were amazed by the sheer number of those >who would participate. Allow participation, Legitimacy is difficult. Yet >there is only one way to achieve it: embrace an open, inclusive, >transparent process regardless of the inefficiencies which offend an >engineering sensibility. > >best regards, >Jean > >http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/people/jcamp > > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719 "If anyone proposed libraries today, they would scream about copyright infringement." --anonymous post on slashdot.org
