[ALAC] Panel overload

Thu Nov 28 09:55:47 UTC 2013

:-D

Results are of course important.

But in matters of governance, consented process is often more important than
results, or else, why have “governance”, we only need “management” (where
results are more important).

In my mind, it is not how the panels are constituted, but how the panels
were conceptualized.  I do not mind board/ceo suggesting these panels, but
they should first ask the community whether and how such panels should be
formed before asking for volunteers to be part of the panel.  That would be
more consistent with the spirit of bottom up in my mind.

Anyway, again, I am not against those panels.

I think we need to, as a community, think about how the board/ceo
should/should-not create these panels in the future though, regardless of
whether the results of those panels were good/bad.

Edmon

From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:22 PM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: ALAC Working List; José Francisco Arce; Evan Leibovitch
Subject: RE: [ALAC] Panel overload

Edmon,

All views are appreciated, especially minority ones because they push
boundaries of discussion.

I think results are very important. Process is important, and particularly
inclusive processes for the purpose of achieving better results. If we only
care about processes, it means that we are oriented towards achieving
nothing in the quest to improve the human condition via the areas of ICANN
work.

The key question for management is how to achieve the results while knowing
that inclusive process is both important to the community and necessary for
results of quality.

If social experiments were really costless, we could run parallel tracks of
bottom-up, top-down and combined approaches.  We could then compare the
results and see which ones work best (and I know that best here can vary
depending on the individual). Unfortunately, processes are not costless. 

As I recall, ICANN did ask the community to nominate names. The problem was
that ICANN didn't ask for feedback on the selection that it made to
ascertain if there were gaps. It would have been great if the panels were
formulated with half external and half internal "experts", but this is how
Fadi chose to proceed.  It would be worthwhile to ask him to have a dialogue
with the community to explain the thought processes that underlie the
decisions-made. 

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Nov 28, 2013 12:49 PM, "Edmon" <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:

It is not about the results, which I hope and am confident they may produce
good work, it is about the process.

What “cost” is it to run it through the community as a participant IN the
community through the bottomup process to form the panels?

Lets say that would add 3 months to the process, but that should be the
approach from management I my mind.  An authoritarian regime can produce
good work with efficiency too.  But is that what we want?  I could be the
minority here :-) but the question has not been asked.

Edmon

From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:12 AM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: ALAC Working List; Evan Leibovitch; José Francisco Arce
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload

Hi.

I wonder if people remember Fadi's speech during the LACRALO showcase in
Buenos Aires. He explained why the panels, which comprised mostly external
people of high reputation, were established. 

For him, the panels essentially had a two-fold purpose: 
1. To help frame strategy development in the areas of concern; and 
2. To get the world's attention. 

As a publicity tool, it certainly was not a bad idea. And Fadi also
understood and explained that filling in the strategy itself would not come
from the panels, but rather the community because the expertise for that
lies within the community. 

My concern about the panels is this: 
1. There are many panels and they are all drawing from the same community
for ideas and resources, creating fatigue at a time when people are worried
about what will happen in Brazil and the ITU events; 
2. There is a relationship among the panels that haven't been worked out yet
(eg, I believe that the public responsibility panel should be the aggregate
or stand above the rest as the highest level strategic direction).

Strategy development is a CEO's responsibility with Board oversight.  Rather
than start another initiative now, let us see what the panels come up with. 

The panels have a very short frame-development timeline (ie, January). If
the community does not believe that the panels are adding any value after
seeing the output, then a different strategy development initiative would be
warranted.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Nov 28, 2013 10:07 AM, "Edmon" <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:

+1

Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder approach.

Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach is
top-down board/ceo initiated "panels".
I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can
achieve much better "input" to the process.

I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there
is significant overload.

Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I
wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some
sensible framework and oversight to it.  Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly
should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated
panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe.

This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in
a bottom up, multistakeholder way.

Edmon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-
> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce
> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM
> To: Evan Leibovitch
> Cc: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
>
> +1
> I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more
> organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about
> multistekeholderism or anything else.
>
> Jose.-
> El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> escribió:
>
> > I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to
get
> > dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being
> > formed.
> >
> >    - Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban
> >    (originally fivem two have been merged)
> >    - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration
> >    - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia
> >    - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked
> >    for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered
by a
> >    joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
> >
> > That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be
> > missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on
> > within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't
see
> > any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the
> > RIRs on these matters).
> >
> > There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility
--
> > credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is
as
> > chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
> >
> > Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there
are
> > only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the
> > other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support
for
> > the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or
> > opposed.
> >
> > But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling
that
> > this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus
> > beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of
> > government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's
> > civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
> >
> > Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best
> > defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this
model
> > appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were
all
> > these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation
itself
> > indicates a problem with the model.
> >
> > All I know right now is that:
> >
> >    - It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels,
and
> >    what relation they have to each other;
> >    - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense
of
> >    the MSM, is diminishing by the day;
> >    - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just
woken
> >    up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been
> > arrogantly
> >    assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not
wholly
> >    satisfying.
> >
> > My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
> >
> > --
> > Evan Leibovitch
> > Toronto Canada
> >
> > Em: evan at telly dot org
> > Sk: evanleibovitch
> > Tw: el56
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> >
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA
C)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-
> Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA
C)

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13