Comment on the reform proposals

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I would like to comment on the proposals in your Reform Discussion Paper.

As per the number of meetings, I find it unadvisable to reduce them from 
three to two. It would affect negatively the speed of policy 
development, its transparency - as with less meetings it is imaginable 
that more discussions would be going on in smaller private meetings or 
through intransparent online exchanges - and ICANN's ability to reach 
out to the world. Also, the pace of events at ICANN meetings is already 
very high and less meetings would possibly lead to an unsustainable 
crowdedness of events.
Also, regional meetings are not a replacement for global ones, except 
perhaps for the outreach function or to foster discussions that are not 
global in nature (but then, they are likely to fall outside ICANN's 
limited global coordination mission). In fact, there only are two 
possibilities: either regional meetings discuss the same things that are 
discussed at global ones - and thus are useless or even 
counterproductive, as the same discussion could take different turns in 
different parts of the world, with then the need to reconcile them at 
the following global meeting - or they would advance the discussions 
between one global meeting and the other - and thus they would exclude 
everyone from outside that region from that step of the discussion.
Also, under the risk of this second option happening, it is likely that 
many ICANN participants will want to participate in all regional 
meetings anyway, thus actually increasing the travel burden and cost; at 
the same time, this would be impossible to do for the less funded 
stakeholders and thus would put them at a disadvantage when it comes to 
advocate their views effectively at all steps in the process.
I am strongly against cancelling the current regime of global rotation 
for meeting places, even if partially. Sure there are practical and 
financial advantages for ICANN staff in having all / many meetings in 
Los Angeles or in Paris. However, the principle of rotation is a 
substantial element of ICANN's fairness towards including all 
communities and countries around the world. It is clear, by looking at 
participation rosters, that having a meeting in a Region is a major 
factor in allowing participation from that Region. Even within the 
current regime, each Region has to wait for almost two years before 
getting to organize another ICANN meeting (and some Regions are really 
huge, so it might take two or three complete turns before ICANN comes 
again to a place reasonably near to you). If only one meeting per year 
rotates, this time doubles; if rotation is abolished, you will have to 
wait forever.
I would be in favour of putting strict requirements to meeting venues - 
for example, no more than 90-120 minutes by car, taxi or train from the 
doorsteps of an intercontinental airport (less than 90 minutes might 
exclude major capitals). I would find it acceptable to "accredit" a few 
cities per Region and rotate each time among pre-selected, optimized 
venues in those cities. But I would not find it acceptable to favour one 
part of the world against others, by having a major share of meetings 
always in the same place. The financial and practical advantage for 
ICANN would be minor if compared with the political disadvantages for 
transparency, inclusiveness and public image.

Finally, as the call for comments requests suggestions about meetings 
organization in general, I am pasting below parts of a submission which 
was sent privately to the Chair of the Board's Meetings Committee in 
December 2006. Several advances have been made and some of the points 
have already been addressed, but I think that there can still be useful 
suggestions in the text.

=== Information systems

You should extend the preregistration system into a proper "membership" 
system, where people register once and keep their account for the 
following meetings. This would allow people to supply more information 
once and keep it there, for example some public profile a la ICANNWiki 
style, but also personal addresses and emergency contact information 
(which might be accessible to staff only).
I don't know how it works for the Board, but for us in the ALAC, we 
always have to spend at least ten emails to communicate travel plans, 
ask for hotel reservation, check what's happening etc. So it would be 
useful if people could upload their travel plans into the membership 
system, and make them accessible to ICANN staff and fellow Committee 
members. For people on ICANN's travel list, staff, in turn, could enter 
reservation information into the system etc. - and we stop scattering 
info in emails that usually get lost. (In the end, you could even get 
authorization and reimbursement procedures hooked up into the system.)
Similarly, AC/SO chairs and appropriate staff should be authorized to 
enter event information straight into a database, and keep it updated. 
The agenda on ICANN's website could then be automatically generated and 
kept updated from that database. Also, you should have screens in the 
lobby with the recap of the day's events, room assignments etc.

=== Documents

There should be written guidelines to moderators, about allowing 
dialogue, getting people to slow down, and ensuring cultural respect 
(e.g., people from many parts of the world are not too used at speaking 
up, nor at being rudely interrupted and challenged as it normally 
happens in other parts of the world).
Also, there should be FAQs for newcomers, on the website and printed, 
possibly targeted to different groups (FAQs for registrars are going to 
be much different than FAQs for human rights activists...).

Regards,
--
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------