Greetings, Forgive the cross-posting, but this message concerns the planned ICANN membership study/workshop at Harvard's Berkman Center, and I believe wide distribution is appropriate. ... Are We Lab Rats or Co-Deliberators? Professor James Fishkin of The Berkman Center on the Internet and Society (BCIS) at Harvard University has developed a methodology of social self-reflection which he calls "Deliberative Polling." This method is now being applied by BCIS personnel in a project called Deliberative Polling in Cyberspace. That project has also been publicized under the name, "The Study of Representation in Cyberspace." The study's organizers have now targeted various DNS-related e-mail lists in order to intervene within the discourse of the debates surrounding the formation of ICANN and its supporting organizations. The researchers initiated their study with an intriguing question. In short: By what criteria can anyone know whether the study was a success? By asking "us" to suggest measurement criteria (and perhaps hypotheses) BCIS personnel suggest "we" have some control over the direction of the study. I welcome this as a carefully thought out experiment in public participation. It offers an approach to resolving the current "DNS Mess" and may generate insights and techniques beneficial to contestants in future Internet governance controversies. In that sense, "we" are not lab rats running through the Berkman Center's maze, but co-participants in a process designed to find ways to reconcile people who carry diverse interests and values. The Process of the Study One way to measure the potential for success of a process of this sort involves articulating the extent to which the subjects knowingly consent to participation in it. Several people have already submitted responses to the initial BCIS solicitation, and a few will be able to participate in a meeting at Harvard, but I don't believe this is sufficient to demonstrate knowledgeable consent. I would like to see straightforward and readily accessible comments from BCIS personnel regarding their own presuppositions, sponsorship, and working agenda. Various BCIS associates have evidently been hired as staff for ICANN. Moreover, the Center's organizers have been actively pursuing some sort of a stewardship or facilitation role in the NEWCO process. This includes planning the ill-fated DNS "editorial" session in September, hosting the first public session with the ICANN interim board in December, and now this latest initiative. In other words, I would like to know more about the relevant channels of communication that have been exclusively or semi-exclusively open to the BCIS personnel. The substance of what has been communicated through those channels would be of interest to me and to other less-well-connected parties interested in this topic. This is not said in an adversarial tone, but simply as a request for more detail that I believe would contribute to a fuller self-awareness for all participants in this study. The Study Itself I'd like to suggest what "we" might do to participate in a successful study. In my mind, the consequence and proof of success would be a demonstration that the study's participants have affected the behavior of the ICANN board, with a view toward influencing policy outcomes. I am concerned that the BCIS study is not proceeding firmly in this direction. There has been far too much talk about who should talk, and how. The BCIS announcement declares that its goal is to fill in the currently empty Article II (Membership) of the ICANN bylaws, bringing people together "to decide matters affecting the entire Internet." Having monitored these discussions for over 18 months, I have come to feel that the membership issue, while certainly important for strengthening the legitimacy of decisions, is a sidetrack to resolving the various resource allocation problems which are at the crux of this debate. The BCIS announcement seems to suggest that the primary goal is to make it possible for a large number of people to participate and represent their own interests in a fair and intelligent manner. If so, then far more should be done to raise general public concern regarding the issues at stake. Fortunately, the announcement also suggests the goal is to create a stable Internet management structure that can expedite a "legitimate and fair" resolution of the conflicts at hand. I believe that focusing on this as a distinct goal would be more pragmatic. This latter goal deserves priority since it focuses on the most important problems. For the past several months discourse on these lists has been dominated by questions of constituencies, classes of membership, and related discussions of stakeholders versus users, members versus membership classes, and verification of identity, as well as how authority and liability should be apportioned. There are many reasons this has occurred, including of course the targets established by the U.S. Government in the White Paper and reaffirmed within the structure of the ICANN proposal. But this obsession with structure also reflects the stalemate that has occurred on the issue of shared versus proprietary TLDs. Debates regarding the most crucial outstanding disputes are stuck. The energy of the participants has been diverted into excesses of complexity. The current process being promoted by BCIS is raising interesting questions about community, polity, and legitimate authority on the Internet, while treading lightly on questions of longstanding concern. Consequently, I make these two suggestions. 1) I hope that participants in the Boston meeting will take the time to develop a consensus and make a clear statement about the need for the current interim board to develop a more open and forthright way of dealing with the public. In my view, assuring the expertise and public accountability of the people directing ICANN deserves higher priority than the constitution of a sophisticated membership network. Opening doors and keeping them would do a world of good. 2) Take action to insist that ICANN's board members spell out what they intend to specify, if anything, regarding: a) the planned new registrars for com, net and org; b) the disposition of the root, and; c) the issue of new gTLDs. Now is the time to begin to reduce uncertainty about the future of DNS management. � Thank you for reading this statement. I regret that I will be unable to participate in the Harvard discussion in real time. My interest in this topic stems from my dissertation work in progress at the University of Miami's School of International Studies. I am primarily concerned with how people involved in the self-governing processes of the Internet are challenging the regulatory power and authority of nation-states. But I would also like to see a pragmatic resolution achieved soon, so that the immense talents of the people involved in this controversy can be turned to more productive endeavors. Information about my research is available at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html. Yours, Craig Simon __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
