[kictanet] Why ICANN Nairobi may be a blessing in disguise

[alice]

Kieren McCarthy [dotcom] <http://kierenmccarthy.com>


  Why ICANN Nairobi may be a blessing in disguise

February 12, 2010 ·


<http://kierenmccarthy.com/category/internet-governance/>

There is a questionmark over ICANN’s upcoming meeting in Nairobi, Kenya 
/again/. This time it has more bite than the usual xenophobia: the COO 
has published 
<http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/security-information-11feb10-en.htm> a US 
Department of State report that lists the conference centre itself as a 
specific threat from a Somalian insurgency group, Al-Shabaab 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harakat_al-Shabaab_Mujahideen>. In 
response, a number of Internet companies have already announced they are 
pulling their people.

The Kenya conference was cancelled last year following election 
violence, and the meeting this year has been under a constant review – 
with the Board finally deciding the bite the bullet at a meeting 
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-22jan10-en.htm> on 22 January 
(my heart, incidentally, goes out to my former colleagues in the 
meetings team who have a near-impossible job of preparing for over 1,000 
attendees at short notice). Now there is fresh discussion about whether 
to go ahead with the meeting – due to start on 7 March.

Maria Farrell has written an interesting post 
<http://crookedtimber.org/2010/02/12/14645/> giving some background 
(although, I feel the need to point out that the attendees at ICANN 
meetings are: one third regulars; one third occasional; one third 
entirely new – my analysis online here 
<http://public.icann.org/meeting-participation-data>). So I thought I’d 
write a post pointing out how this bad news can be turned around to be 
positive for the organization.

*If the meeting goes ahead…*

It is a terrific opportunity for ICANN to really work on remote 
participation since large numbers of ICANNers will not be physically 
attending. This fact has not been missed (thank god) by the Board’s 
Public Participation Committee 
<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/participation/>, which has been 
pushing for participation guides at its past 
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-ppc-27jan10-en.htm> two 
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-ppc-13jan10-en.htm> meetings.

I am delighted to see this approach, especially since it was a main 
recommendation 
<http://kierenmccarthy.com/2009/12/01/public-participation-my-icann-leaving-report/#guidelines> 
of mine in my leaving report 
<http://kierenmccarthy.com/2009/12/01/public-participation-my-icann-leaving-report/> 
as general manager of public participation.

Most of the tools for effective remote participation are already in 
place. What is missing are the cultural and procedural guidelines to 
make the most of them. With lots of people unlikely to attend, this is 
an ideal opportunity for ICANN to step up a notch and start making 
remote participation a functional reality.

*If the meeting is cancelled…*

Then I sincerely hope that the Board decides to simply cancel the event 
and reinvest the $2 million it costs to run an ICANN meeting (or as much 
as it can recoup) into events that focus people’s attention on the 
issues that need to be tackled.

There are only really two things of importance that the Nairobi meeting 
is going to cover: the Expressions of Interest model for new Internet 
extensions (whether people have to pre-apply for their gTLD); and the 
registry/registrar separation issue (the rules surrounding the split 
between those who sell domains and those who run the Internet registry 
itself).

The Board is going to make the decision regarding the Expressions of 
Interest. And it has lots of comment 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/> from the community 
following a very active public comment period. I’d like to see the Board 
meet physically somewhere else (Los Angeles?) for a week and really 
tackle the issue and do what it needs to do – make a decision. The 
community has had its say, having another meeting on the issue is only 
chewing up valuable time.

And wrt registry/registrar separation – well, it seems that there is 
work being done on that by the Board, as made clear in the latest Board 
minutes (item k) 
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-04feb10-en.htm#k>. So why not 
have the staff focus on producing the work the Board has asked for, and 
then have the Board spend a week discussing and reviewing the issue, 
coming out with firm recommendations for review – rather than engage in 
another largely pointless and time-consuming community discussion that 
is scheduled for Nairobi.

The other HUGE advantage to cancelling the whole meeting would be to 
overcome the status-quo fears of some in the community about moving from 
three to two international public meetings a year.

Over the past four years, first Susan Crawford (ex-Board member and 
former advisor to President Obama), then Paul Levins (ex-VP of Corporate 
Affairs and the man who negotiated an end to the Joint Project 
Agreement), and then the Board Public Participation Committee as well as 
the Head of Meetings have all argued that ICANN should reduce the number 
of large international meetings the organization runs each year.

Having studied this issue closely myself, I have absolutely no doubt 
that reducing the number of international public meetings would benefit 
both ICANN and the community. All it requires is the community to get 
over its fear of change. And cancelling the whole meeting will cause 
minds to focus, and provide some funds to think about what meetings do 
need to happen to move the organization’s work forward.

So, possibly, hopefully, this Nairobi problem will end up a blessing in 
disguise.