[PC-NCSG] New Member Policy Process Reflections

[Sam Lanfranco]

Amr,

Thanks for your detailed response. In the interests of brevity I will 
not reproduce the two previous NCSG-Policy postings here. I will try to 
focus on the key issues you raise. This is a meta level discussion 
compared to the usual work of the NCSG community, but stepping back and 
looking from a distance can be healthy. For the most part, while we 
appear to be in agreement on much of this, I will focus on areas where 
there is still some need for clarification.

With regard to the vulnerability of the multistakeholder process within 
ICANN, here are two short comments. First, I am heavily invested in the 
multistakeholder processes with regard to policy. I believe it will turn 
out to be the hallmark advance in governance in the 21st Century, in 
large part because of the Internet ecosystem. Second, I worry that 
ICANN?s multistakeholder process is vulnerable to outside pressures from 
two sources. One, which you cite, is the narrow breadth and shallow 
depth of NPO/Civil Society engagement, especially if that comes under 
attack from governments. NPOC, beyond its role within NCSG and ICANN, is 
devoting increased attention to that issue. The other vulnerability is 
around elements within policy positions, as apart from policy development.

Our comments agree with regard to the What, Why and How of policy 
development. Each stage is never perfect and policy is an ongoing 
process. The dialogue and decisions around the What and Why set the 
context, within which the How is the always a difficult part. You ask 
how my assessment of inadequate attention to the policy "How" makes the 
multistakeholder process vulnerable. I will address that as an issue 
beyond the one of breadth and depth of engagement.

Let me use the .health gTLD to illustrate the vulnerability, and link it 
back to the problem of anemic engagement in the policy processes. I am 
in full agreement with you on the assessment that virtually all of the 
issues surrounding .health have nothing to do with the existence or 
non-existence of .health as a gTLD, nor whether the registry is a 
private entity or belongs to an entity like the WHO (which did not 
compete for it). The issues are outside ICANN?s remit and there is 
nothing within ICANN itself that can address those issues. So what is 
the vulnerability here?

Let me draw on the thoughts of A.K. Sen in his book, /The Idea of 
Justice/, where he reminds us that the purpose of engagement is twofold. 
It is to participate in the decision making process, such as voting in a 
democracy or reaching consensus within ICANN, but it is also to educate 
and raise the levels of awareness within constituent communities, both 
for social cohesion and for future decision making. This is especially 
applicable for Internet governance since there are multiple venues 
within the Internet ecosystem where policy issues arise.

I would have hoped, and expected, that the dialogue within ICANN could 
have produced a more explicit position with regard to where the 
constituencies stood on gTLDs like .health. I especially think that we 
have an obligation to turn around and also help raise awareness and 
understanding within our own constituent communities. They raised the 
questions and we should help answer them.

For example, my analysis of .health is the same as yours. As Chair of 
the Policy Committee in NPOC I am trying to get NPOC to take a position 
on .health, not just to have a position but to also raise awareness and 
knowledge within the global health community. That is not easy. In a 
venue strongly opposed to .health an email to 2300 members suggesting 
they express their views to their own governments generated 5 actions. 
My personal view as expressed in that discussion is that the issues 
attached to .health are indeed serious but are wrongly attached to 
.health and should be addressed elsewhere. This is at odds with the ALAC 
position where I am unsure of both the analysis and the argument behind 
their position. Ideally this could serve as a basis for further dialogue 
between ICANN constituency groups such as ALAC and NPOC, dialogue that 
could produce at least a deeper understanding of the issues, and maybe 
lay this matter to rest within ICANN.

Again, where is the multistakeholder processes vulnerability here? It 
exists at two levels. ICANN, and its constituencies continue to be a 
target for misplaced strategies trying to pressure ICANN, or NPOC, or 
whomever, to ?do something about .health?. These attacks are not by 
politically motivated adversaries of ICANN, nor attacks on the 
multistakeholder process. They are driven by poorly informed 
frustration, but they damage both ICANN and the credibility of 
multistakeholder processes. The other vulnerability is that this 
presents ammunition for moves by politically motivated adversaries of 
ICANN.

How would I address these risks of vulnerability? Again using .health as 
an example, I would (and am) pushing for a clearer statement of ICANN 
constituency positions, starting with NPOC. I would also urge each 
organized constituency within ICANN to take greater initiative in 
raising the awareness, knowledge, and understanding of such Internet 
ecosystem issues, in order to promote greater engagement in policy 
within the appropriate venues, many of which are outside ICANN and at 
the national level. This is not to diminish the importance of work under 
way by others, but is to suggest that ICANN constituencies themselves 
also have an outreach obligation that goes beyond recruitment.

Sam Lanfranco, Chair
NPOC Policy Committee.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/662d473b/attachment.html>