CIRA submission to ICANN's Request for public comments and dialogue on ICANN's performance

["Bernard Turcotte" <bernard.turcotte@xxxxxxx>]

Via EMAIL

 

May 10, 2007

 

ICANN

4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 

Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 

USA

 

 

Re:      Request for public comments and dialogue on ICANN's performance

 

We write in response to your Request for Public Comments and dialogue on
ICANN's performance dated May 8, 2007.

 

In the past we have raised concerns over the transparency and accountability
of governance at ICANN including how it conducts its public consultations.
More recently, we have been encouraged by the steps ICANN has undertaken to
increase transparency, and have stated this opinion publicly at the ICANN
Lisbon meeting. Although improvements have been made, ICANN's recent Request
for Public Comments represents a clear step backwards in ICANN's journey
towards becoming a truly transparent and accountable organization.

 

Transparency and accountability in governance requires a comprehensive,
inclusive process. Consultations are one governance tool that, when properly
applied, can yield significant benefits for all stakeholders. The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEDC) has
established clear best practices for conducting consultations1.
Unfortunately, the ICANN Request for Public Comments does not subscribe to
these commonly accepted indicia for conducting a proper public consultation:

 

*         There was no prior indication by ICANN to its key stakeholders
that any public consultation was pending;

*         ICANN made no effort to solicit responses from the Community
during the Lisbon meeting; the timing of the consultation also prevents
discussion during the upcoming Puerto Rico meeting;

*         The Request for Public Comments does not explain the context in
which it arises i.e. the purpose for which it is being used, nor what action
will result based on the responses;

*         The Request for Public Comments does not include any background
documentation or previously developed materials. The questions themselves
are overly broad: the scope and responses to any of which could constitute a
demanding consultation in their own right; and

*       Inadequate time is permitted for responses. Given the short 30 day
response period, it is unreasonable to expect respondents will have the
sufficient time to research and prepare detailed responses to the complex,
open-ended questions posed by the consultation.

 

Due to the poor design and implementation of this Request for Public
Comments we, as most serious stakeholders should, see few - if any -
advantages to contributing to this effort which cannot produce any usable
results while potentially further alienating constituents.

 

We understand that ICANN is committed to improving its transparency and have
publicly recognized its progress towards this goal. We hope that our
comments will be taken as an opportunity to open constructive dialogue on
how ICANN can improve its processes for the benefit of all stakeholders.

 

We look forward to discussing this issue with you at the upcoming ICANN
meeting.

 

Yours very truly,

 

 

 

Bernard Turcotte

 

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

1 Guidelines for Online Public Consultation:

http://www.oecd.org/document/40/0,2340,en_2649_34495_37539752_1_1_1_1,00.htm
l