Prior to the last ICANN meeting held in Mexico City, ICANN set up a system where you could submit a question concerning the new gTLD’s which might be asked and answered at the meeting. (You can read our post about this process here). The questions were limited to 30 words, in twitter like fashion.
ICANN has just published the results for this project.
You can view all the questions asked, whom asked them and the response given by ICANN to the questions by clicking here.
I haven’t reviewed these yet, but it seems that to their credit, ICANN did in fact answer each question asked, including 2 of mine, although I’m sure we will like few of the answers.
Go check it out.
Thanks Michael for posting the link. My interpretation is that ICANN sufficiently explained certain questions while providing only very minimal responses to a large number of other important questions.
From my point of view, they avoided commiting a solid response for which they might be held accountable at a later date. In other words, notable dancing & side-stepping.
I paid particular notice to many of George Kirikos’ questions which were very pointed and probing. George’s research into ICANN practices is very good, and he is able to peel back layers that would never be exposed otherwise. Maybe wishful thinking on my part, but I would like to see the domainer/internet community form a new body, led by George (should he ever be interested), that does nothing but police ICANN’s adherence to established policies. A centralized, easily accessed summation week by week of ICANN such that someone is constantly watching over their shoulder and exposing questionable practices, and problems.
Perhaps working hand-in-hand with ICA or whatever body has access to legislators, DOC, etc. Kind of an independent auditor of ICANN who publicly report on their actions. ICANN have operated too long with impunity and too much authority.
I second George’s nomination.
This is a little melodramatic.
I put the question box in place in order to show people that ICANN really has nothing to hide. It was a form in which you could ask any question whatsoever (which is what has always been the case in the physical public forum). And then ICANN answers them.
I think the answers show pretty much the reality of ICANN’s work:
1. There is a huge amount of work, which means it is not always possible to communicate all that is happening (very different from hiding it).
2. Nothing untoward is going on. Just because someone makes an allegation doesn’t mean there is any truth in it – and I think the answers bear that out.
Why did ICANN lose money in its portfolio? Well, because we followed a perfectly reasonable investment but were hit like everyone else in the global economy. (In fact, ICANN’s investments were cannier as the organization lost less than the comparable average.)
Does ICANN have dossiers on community members? Of course not – that’s ridiculous.
Will the CEO pay go down as well as up with currency fluctuations? Answer: yes, of course.
These watchdog-style questions are more along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?” than productive efforts at getting important information better known.
3. ICANN can’t give answers to alot of questions that people want the answers to for the simple reason that **we don’t know what the answers are yet**. The whole process that ICANN goes through is one of gradual iterations – feedback on an idea changes that idea, feedback on another changes both. That’s the process.
I really think the most fervent critics of ICANN – those that ascribe conspiratorial meaning to everyday work – really fundamentally fail to understand how ICANN works. ICANN is not a company making a product that it then sells to people; it is an organization that is designed to find careful compromise between large groups of widely differing people.
4. There is a whole world of possibilities and possible actions that ICANN can’t deal with because either a) it is about the Internet but not about ICANN’s role, or b) there just isn’t the time to consider that point when more fundamental points have still to be considered.
At some point people will have to let go of the dark mutterings and the conspiratorial paranoia and recognize the fact that what ICANN does as an organization is find complex compromises.
And that means that the process doesn’t always follow a singular line of logic, and it means that it will never produce anything that anyone is 100 percent happy with.
If everyone is equally unhappy then you have reached an equitable compromise. That’s not an easy concept to grasp, but it’s the reality I’m afraid.
But keep asking the questions and I’ll keep providing the answers.
Kieren
I give Kieren credit for responding to the thread.
However, her response sounds like the typical PR response from any major organization.
Unfortunately, Icann has a track record of saying they want to hear everyone’s opinion and then doing exactly what they wanted to do initially.
@Kieren – More dramatic than melodramatic. Kieren, the issues that have all of us concerned are serious. Your context is completely different than those that live outside of ICANN.
You have personal relationships and an inside view of people’s motivations within ICANN. We have no such frame of reference. Our perceptions are shaped by ICANN’s choices, their numerous past mistakes, and a somewhat aloof indifference. That’s the face of ICANN for many people and companies who exist on the outside, and who have been hampered (even harmed) by ICANN’s agendas.
While I know your intentions are good, i.e. to foster dialogue and to educate & build good will, you have no right to be dismissive. The “melodrama” is a result of people’s anger over having legitimate concerns trivialized, and still largely unaddressed. There is growing determination to MAKE ICANN consider issues from all key perspectives, and to generate fair solutions … no matter how long it takes. The timeline is however long it takes to arrive at acceptable consensus with all major concerns adequately resolved, not when ICANN get tired and want to go home.
ICANN have to answer for their decisions. To the little guy, the private companies, the stakeholders that they’d rather ignore, and the government that awarded them their role.
ICANN will have to defend their policies and plans. And to the extent that ICANN and her representatives sidestep or misdirect (such as the wasted feasibility study ala Dr. Carlton), people will call ICANN on it.
You write “At some point people will have to let go of the dark mutterings and conspiratorial paranoia”. ICANN will have majority support, and not their condemnation, when ICANN cease acting against the greater good and preferences of the majority. Those at ICANN are growing weary of having their plans called into question. That’s the unfortunate reality that ICANN must face. It’s called accountability, check & balance. And it’s been identified at this moment in time as very important. ICANN need to slow down and listen, not plow forward stubbornly. Stakeholders will not stand for it.
ICANN are operating in a general economic climate that has been rife with dishonesty and corruption, and an epidemic lack of oversight and accountability. People are fed up with bureaucrats and self-important types who feel justified in dismissing the interests of the majority in order to “run the show” unencumbered.
ICANN’s decisions will affect many, many people and corporations. And ICANN will not be allowed a pass because they think their job is hard.
It’s too simplistic to operate on “If everyone is equally unhappy then you have reached an equitable compromise. That’s not an easy concept to grasp, but it’s the reality I’m afraid.”
That’s the ICANN-like thinking that has generated much ill will and numerous impasses, and it’s NOT ACCEPTABLE!
If ICANN sincerely desire public support, then they will need to:
1. At a minimum, limit new TLD introduction to no more than 2 or 3 per year with ample time allowed for assimilation. Called the common sense approach.
2. Eliminate any possiblity of tiered/unregulated pricing, ever, for existing tld’s.
3. Develop & provide an intelligent, water proof, and thoroughly developed mechanism for safeguarding brand owners from massive global TM infrigement defense costs. This has to happen FIRST! Before you begin filling your accounts with $185,000 application fees.
4. Conduct a study (a true, high-integrity study) on the potential internet instability implications projected from massive consumer confusion when new tlds result in keyword duplication on both sides of the dot … as primary tld’s begin to mirror second level domains.
5. Abandon a “timeline” for launching anything until the above concerns have been genuinely explored, and resolved.
Thanks for this lengthy and considered post, Max.
We agree on more points than you would think. I agree with you that ICANN has made many errors and mistakes in the past. I wrote extensively as a journalist about them.
Since taking the job as general manager of public participation for the organization, I have spent alot of time also trying to fix this aloofness you talk about. In many cases, all that’s needed is a clear indication that people’s views have been heard and considered.
When it comes to actual policy points and text on page, you should hopefully have seen that all public comment periods now have a summary and analysis of comments produced. That is step one.
For the Applicant Guidebook i.e. the whole new gTLD process, you will hopefully have seen stage two – an extensive summary of all people’s views complete with a stated of the current perspective of ICANN on any given issue. That way everyone is able to view others’ views on a particular topic and see that their own view also reflected.
I realize that is will take time for this process to take hold and so for people to feel comfortable that even where their particular perspective is not where the end result ends up, that their views were heard and their opinion duly considered.
The reason I was critical in my previous post on this page was because one of the biggest problems ICANN as a community faces is that knee-jerk negative reaction that often strays into wild accusation when people don’t see that exact perspective reflected in subsequent documents.
I made the point that ICANN’s entire job is to find complex compromises – for the simple reason that the community covers everyone from governments to business to the technical community to civil society, all of whom have different views.
And you attacked this simple reality as unacceptable and then provided a list of things that ICANN must do.
Now consider the fact that there are several thousands regular ICANN attendees, all of whom have their own must-do lists, many of which conflict directly with one another.
What if your must-do list was accepted and theirs ignored? Would that make for a better process? What if by the same process yours was ignored in favour of someone else’s?
What ICANN does is try to find a way to move forward while bearing in mind everyone’s views. Where ICANN has fallen down in the past is in explaining what path has been chosen and why – and also explaining why others paths weren’t chosen.
The organization is getting much better at that. And it is that process that needs to be the focus of people’s critical review.
Cheers
Kieren McCarthy