[ALAC] Panel overload

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Thu Nov 28 10:57:46 UTC 2013


Edmon,

I agree that consultation with the community on processes related to the
panels should have been done. Board and management should be called out on
the fact that the consultation did not happen.  In ICANN, this should be
filed under bad practise.

I think what you are asking for is a review of the current process and
identification of what factors would accord such processes legitimacy by
way of community input and engagement.

Expert panels are valuable mechanisms for achieving specific objectives.  I
don't think we want to stop the CEO/Board from utilizing these mechanisms,
but rather to identify the requirements that would make them acceptable and
worthy of support by the community. If this is what you mean, then we are
in agreement.

Best regards,

Rinalia
On Nov 28, 2013 5:56 PM, "Edmon" <edmon at isoc.hk> wrote:

>  :-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+(ALAC)
>  ------------------------------
>
> 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
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list