<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<small><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>The Role of
Experts in ICANN deliberations<small>:</small><o:p></o:p></big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>
</big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>This issue is
churning away in the background of various
discussions so here is a contribution to thinking about how to
handle it. <o:p></o:p></big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>
</big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>There are two
areas of concern with regard to the role of
experts in ICANN deliberations. The first, of course, is the
selection of
appropriate experts for the issue/task at hand. As everyone
involved in policy and
project implementation knows, knowledge and expertise only
have meaning in
context, and excellent credentials applied to the wrong task
produces a double
risk. The advice will be out of context, and there is the risk
of legitimating
the advice based on the credentials of the expert, rather than
on the suitability
of the advice to the context. In fact, this is always a
problem, no matter how
the expert selection process is undertaken and by whom. <o:p></o:p></big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>
</big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>This leads to the
second concern, and one that is present in
ICANN deliberations. That is once the expert opinion is tabled
it is given
undue weight in decision making independent of its actual
relevance and
strengths. This has happened with some of the content of
recently retained
ICANN expert panels, in particular the one on enhanced
multistakeholder
engagement. <o:p></o:p></big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>
</big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>There is a long
standing tried and true protection against
the risks associated with both of these concerns. The British
call it the Green
Paper process, and it would be simple to incorporate it into
ICANN’s use of
retained expertise to assist in decision making. It is very
much like the terms
of reference currently being used for the IANA stewardship
coordination group.
An agreed upon simple statement could be a mandatory part of
the charter, or
terms of reference, for any expert group convened within
ICANN. Something like:
<o:p></o:p></big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>
</big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">This expert group
will identify issues and options, and may suggest
recommendations for policy or
implementation, to be used as input into the subsequent
multistakeholder
dialogue and multistakeholder recommendations for action. <o:p></o:p></b></big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>
</big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>While there will
still be differences of opinion as to who
should be retained as experts, such a process reduces the
critical role of
expert selection in the ultimate policy decisions, and allows
the stakeholder
groups to insure that subsequent use of advice is based on the
relevance of the
advice to the issues at hand. It focuses on usable outputs and
not expert
credentials, and minimizes the extent to which decision making
can selectively
pick elements of the advice based on self-interest. <o:p></o:p></big></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big>
</big></font></small><br>
Sam L.<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big><o:p> </o:p></big></font>
</body>
</html>