FYI: At 8/8/2002 12:34 AM, Hans Klein wrote: > Please forward > ****************************************************************** > CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 14 8 August 2002 > > Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy > > Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) > http://www.civsoc.org > > The Internet Democracy Project > http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/ > ****************************************************************** > >After four years of existence ICANN is widely recognized as a top-down >policy-making body with only a weak basis in legitimacy. The Markle >Foundation expressed the consensus of the Internet community when it said, >"ICANN, as it has developed, is seriously flawed as a global institution >able to make decisions worthy of deference or to safeguard the public >interest...'" [1] > >This legitimacy deficit is certainly not from any failure to go through >the motions. In its words and its actions, ICANN seems to employ >participative, consensus-based, bottom-up procedures. The problem is that >these words and actions often serve only to create an illusion of >legitimacy. The reality is much different. > >The simulation of legitimacy is most frequently observed in matters >pertaining to the At Large Membership. Today these activities are >centered in the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC). After the Board >eliminated user elections this spring, ICANN's former Chair launched the >ALOC to "guide and encourage bottom-up efforts ... for meaningful, >informed participation ... by a full range of Internet users." [2] In >fact, close observation shows that user input and participation is tightly >controlled. > >In this issue of the Cyber-Federalist I examine the tactics by which ICANN >and the ALOC create the illusion of legitimacy. The three tactics used >most frequently are: Newspeak, exclusionary committees, and participant >learning curves. > >Newspeak >======== >A considerable portion of ICANN's budget goes to public >relations. Through its spokespeople, press releases, and interviews, >ICANN presents issues in the most favorable light possible. Sometimes, >however, ICANN's announcements seem contradictory to the facts. > >Orwell's most famous Newspeak phrase was, "War is peace"; for ICANN the >equivalent might be "Disenfranchisement is participation." In Accra the >Board rejected its own At Large Study Committee's (ALSC) recommendations >to hold elections and instead decided to modify its bylaws to eliminate >user representation from the board. The ALSC's Charles Costello of the >Carter Center judged that act in no uncertain terms: >* "The management proposal ... is a declared intent of a palace coup >d'etat from within ICANN." >* "[It] is a breach of faith with the founding principles and basic >structure of ICANN..." [3] > >ICANN's official pronouncements painted a decidedly different picture. In >a board resolution and a subsequent press release, the elimination of >voting rights was described as an effort to promote participation: >* "ICANN Board approves individual Internet user participation" >* "[The Board] wishes to move forward with energy and enthusiasm to build >a meaningful structure for informed participation by the full range of >Internet users" [4] > >Even as it eliminated a basic mechanism of accountability -- the election >of directors, as guaranteed in its founding by-laws -- ICANN used public >relations techniques to convince the public that it was committed to a >meaningful role for users. Actions and words diverged. > >The web site for the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) is another >example of Newspeak. The site claims that the ALOC's work will be public >and will be facilitated by a paid staff person. Yet the reality is >different. Since its launch the ALOC has operated on a private list with >no known archives. The ALOC's staff "facilitator" actually writes the >material, and committee members are invited to comment on >it. Contributions judged inappropriate by the "facilitator" have been >summarily rejected -- even when they have received support in the >committee. When this behavior was challenged by ALOC members, the >facilitator announced the creation of a closed sub-committee from which >the more outspoken members were excluded (more on this below.) Language >and reality diverged. While top-down, closed processes are not per se >wrong, it is inaccurate to describe such a process as public and >participative. Such a description exaggerates the legitimacy of a closed >policy process. > >Committees >========= >Another tool to create the illusion of public input is committees -- and >sub-committees, and sub-sub-committees. Consistent with its mandate to >employ consensual processes, ICANN often creates committee to address >policy questions. However, should such a committee propose ideas >inconsistent with what is desired, it is not uncommon that a new committee >be formed. Should that committee also give the "wrong" answer, yet >another committee may be formed. And so on. At each step, the >composition of the latest committee may be refined. By excluding more >vocal or better-informed members, ICANN may eventually achieve a committee >whose opinion corresponds to what is desired. This can then be accepted >as "public input." > >Thus when reformist directors were elected to the ICANN Board, the Board's >business migrated to an Executive Sub-committee. Reform-minded directors >were excluded. Or when the DNSO Review Working Group came up with the >"wrong" ideas, the recommendations of another group -- the DNSO Review >"Task Force" -- were used. In both cases the illusion of participation >was maintained, but dissenting ideas were filtered out by the creation of >new committees. > >The At Large Membership process has also seen a succession of >committees. Self-organizing user groups like the NGO and Academic ICANN >Study (NAIS) and the Interim Coordinating Committee (ICC) [5] were >uncompromising in their commitment to user elections. Predictably, their >recommendations were not adopted. Then the ICANN Board appointed its own >committee to consider the issues: the At Large Study Committee >(ALSC). However, after the ALSC also supported user elections, the Board >rejected its recommendations, too. The Board finally decided to >unilaterally eliminate elections. > >Today's ALOC manifests similar tactics. When ALOC members, including this >author, included in a collective document language supporting user >elections, the ALOC "facilitator" vetoed the material. In short order a >new sub-committee was created, from which outspoken members were >excluded. The ALOC's substantive work then shifted to this restricted >group. Whether this sub-committee with its reduced membership will give >the desired results remains to be seen. > >This use of committee-formation to filter out dissent is a second tactic >to create the illusion of legitimacy. By ignoring committees that give >the "wrong" results and by creating new committees or sub-committees as >needed, ICANN creates the illusion of participatory processes. > >Participant Learning Curves >====================== >When newcomers join ICANN processes, they can generally be counted on not >to publicly dissent for about six months. That is the time needed for >someone to understand complex policy questions and to evaluate the >credibility of other participants. During this period newcomers' passive >acquiescence and institutional affiliations can shore up ICANN's legitimacy. > >Imagine the situation of a newcomer new to ICANN and low on the learning >curve. On the one hand, he/she hears the strong language used by people >like Congressman Markey (ICANN is a "failure,") the Carter Center's >Costello ("a palace coup,") or law professor Michael Froomkin ("ICANN >plays dirty -- it lies.") [6]. On the other hand, the newcomer hears >ICANN proclaim its commitment to open processes and sees ICANN accepting >input from committees -- seemingly clear proof of its open and >participative nature. As a result, most newcomers cautiously participate >in ICANN processes and may support policies proposed from the top. They >give ICANN the benefit of the doubt. > >Perhaps this explains the vehemence that comes later. Committee work >representing many people-months' labor may be summarily rejected or >ignored. Decisions once made may be reopened and passed to a new >committee. Such has been the experience of members of the ALSC and the >ALOC. After a few such experiences, the newcomer often joins the chorus >of critics or leaves in disgust. By then, however, another batch of >newcomers may be invited to participate, and the process begins again. > >Exploiting the learning curves of successive waves of participants has >been an important tactic for the piecewise advancement of top-down decisions. > >You Can't Fool All of the People All of the Time >==================================== >Newspeak, committees, learning curves -- these and a host of other tactics >have been the stuff of the ICANN policy process. While such dissimulation >used to cause outrage, it is increasingly a source of wry amusement. As US >Congressman Ed Markey said, "Although ICANN is supposed to be a >consensus-based organization, the irony is that the only thing it has >achieved global consensus on is that it is a failure." [7] > >Over time the tactics of illusion wear thin. Today, ICANN is widely >recognized for what it is: a top-down policy-making institution that >regulates important areas of the Internet. It is not particularly >transparent, accountable, or representative. The people who run ICANN may >honestly believe that this is how it should be; that is not the issue >here. The issue is that ICANN attempts to make its processes look >different than what they are. Expressions of concern about "participation >by the full range of Internet users" are inconsistent with a demonstrated >commitment to top-down decision-making. > >In particular, the ALOC (or its new sub-committee) is emerging as the >latest attempt to create the illusion of legitimacy. With its staff >vetoing language deemed unacceptable, the ALOC seems likely to produce a >result acceptable to the ICANN board. At that point ICANN's board may >announce that it has finally discovered the true voice of the user. > >### > >References >========= >[1] Markle Foundation, "A Pluralistic View of DNS Governance: Core >Principles for ICANN Reform," Statement for the Record to the Senate >Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on >Science, Technology, and Space, Hearing on ICANN (June 12, >2002) http://radio.weblogs.com/0108486/misc/icannstatementfinal-markle.doc >[2] From the ALOC home page. (The language is quoted from an ICANN Board >resolution. See note 4, below.) http://www.at-large.org/ >[3] Charles Costello, ICANN Public Forum in Accra, Real-time Captioning, >13 March >2002. http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-13mar02.htm (To >find the quote in this lengthy document, search on "palace coup.") >[4] ICANN Board Resolution, 14 March 2002, "ALSC Report and At >Large." http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm >[5] NAIS: http://www.naisproject.org/ ICC: http://www.icannmembers.org/ >[6] Froomkin, Michael, presentation at "The Public Voice in Internet >Policy Making," 22 June 2002, sponsored by the Electronic Privacy >Information Center (EPIC). http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/dc02/ >. For Markey quote, see note 7. For Costello quote, see note 3. >[7] Markey, Edward, (US Congressman), quoted in the Washington Post and >Access Global Knowledge, 20 June 2002. >http://access.globalknowledge.com/Article.asp?ID=3904 > > >========================================================= > >CYBER-FEDERALIST is a series of analyses and commentaries >on Internet governance and ICANN produced by the >Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) of >Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). >See: > http://www.cyber-federalist.org (archive) > http://www.civsoc.org > http://www.cpsr.org > >The author of the CYBER-FEDERALIST is Hans Klein. > >Subscribe to the CYBER-FEDERALIST! >Send an Email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >========================================================= > >### > > > > > > > +++ Jay Fenello, Internet Services http://www.Fenello.com ... 678-585-9765 http://www.YourWebPartner.com ... Web Support http://www.AligningWithPurpose.com ... for a Better World --------------------------------------------------------- "Seeker: How can I find the path? Teacher: Learn to walk, and the path will find you." -- The Zen of Global Transformation, Nasrudin O'Shah
