Re: [ALSC-Forum] Splinter Groups

[Derek Conant]

Everything starts out as a nasty splinter in an environment of forming
concepts, policy and standards.  After all, we are discussing the nasty
business of controlling opinion here as the end product.

It would be easy for me to say that the DNSGA should be the centralized
organization you mention, and mean it!  After all, this is somewhat the
original purpose of the DNSGA when I founded it.  However, what I have come
to realize is that this baby is much larger than what the DNSGA, or any one
organization, can handle.  The mechanics here are similar to that of which
is why a single Government cannot not control the world.  The U.S. grip
requires this understanding.  So, it makes better sense to start with this
kind of understanding first if things are going to work here and so to not
waste time.

The centralized system you mention in the model I presented would be ICANN
itself within the dynamic it survives by.  ICANN itself, to survive, will
assure and maintain the creation of centralized, visible, places and a
regular schedule for debates and resolutions.

The individuals and splinter groups together report their concepts and
positions to the ICANN APOs.  The APOs report to the ICANN SOs.  ICANN SOs
report to the ICANN Board.  I propose that the ICANN SOs be restructured to
accommodate this concept.  The ICANN Board should only handle so much, as is
the same for ICANN SOs.  Let the APOs do the nasty work.  This concept will
give ICANN the legitimacy and internationalization it so desperately seeks.

ICANN wants internationalization.  All countries want internationalization.
Because we are in an environment where everyone wants internationalization
and everyone wants this baby to work for them.  The concept or model I
presented should fly, and fly right maybe it will with a little tweaking.

Derek Conant
DNSGA Chairman and President

Derek Conant wrote:

> I posted a similar message to the one below at the DNSO GA forum this
> morning.  Having attended the ICANN At-Large Membership Study Committee
> meeting in Stockholm this morning, I believe that the below statement is
> relevant and constructive for this forum.
>
> In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
> technology, policy and standards is one that includes many splinter
> groups (SG).  SGs may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
> quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
> individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
> development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its
> Supporting Organizations (SOs) later going to manage and validate the
> large quantities of comments, opinions and information contributed by
> individuals and organizations willing to participate?
>
> A qualified organization or group with its own constituencies and
> consensus is able to assist in the management of information and
> expedite the process of developing and contributing constructive opinion
> derived from its constituencies efficiently onward to the decision
> making bodies or governing bodies (ICANN and its SOs).  This also allows
> the freedom for interested parties to flow from one organization or
> group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and continuing
> interest to participate in these processes.
>
> A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
> constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
> topics or matters at issue.
>
> ----
> What may be ahead is a restructuring of ICANN's SOs and the development
> of procedures and guidelines that give interested organizations with
> working constituencies a process to follow for submission of their
> constituencies' positions regarding topics or subject matter.
>
> I imagine certain interested parties as individuals and workgroup SGs
> participating as constituencies submitting their positions to an *ICANN
> Approved Proposal Organization* (APO).  I see that said APO will weigh
> the comments, opinions and information contributed by its SG
> constituency members, and I can see that the APO will build its position
> regarding topics and subject matter from the valid consensus derived
> from its SG constituency members.
>
> I then imagine that the APO will propose its positions based upon its SG
> constituency members' consensus in a formal application and proposal to
> ICANN SOs.  The ICANN SOs would then be responsible for reviewing and
> weighing the merits of the APO's application and proposal.  The ICANN
> SOs would then build its opinion upon consensus from the APO
> applications and proposals and submit findings and information regarding
> topics or subject matter to the ICANN Board for review.
>
> In this model I imagine that ICANN Board Members and ICANN SO
> representatives would eventually be elected by the APOs.  I also imagine
> possibly hundreds of APOs and many ICANN SOs structurally placed to
> manage APO proposals.
>
> The ICANN Board may request the ICANN SOs to engage the advancement and
> development of certain topics and subject matter, whereas, the APO's may
> request the ICANN SOs to engage advancement and development of certain
> topics and subject matter for ICANN Board review.  The process is open
> and transparent and one can see how the ICANN SOs reached their
> conclusions from the APO applications and proposals.  However, ICANN SOs
> decide what the ICANN Board sees.
>
> I believe that most everyone and every Country around the world wants
> the Internet and emerging technologies to work for them and their
> respective economy.  There should be no fear of allowing a process that
> demands demonstrable and verifiable valid consensus and information to
> lead here.  The model proposed reduces the threat of special interest
> group penetration or undue influence taking over ICANN.  The
> accountability mechanism in this model is in the demonstrable and
> verifiable consensus and information proposed through the process, that
> of which shows how ICANN receives its direction.
>
> I believe that Mankind has not completed her/his process of learning how
> to trust one another around the world.  International governance is
> still maturing.  There does not appear to be any way to manage the real
> threat of special interest group penetration or undue influence taking
> over ICANN at this time if everyone's votes are counted.  Voters should
> be qualified in this case and show that they know what is being
> represented.  I believe that the APO concept allows for a showing and
> validation of the APO's vote.  The APO is what votes.
>
> Another thing with this concept is that it allows for APO individuals
> and workgroup SGs to flow to and from other APOs which allows for
> accountability and diversity as APOs compete with other APOs.
>
> We have a long way to go and a short time to get there.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman