[discuss] Current drive

[John Curran]

On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> If this is agreed, then we also need to agree that such an effort requires resources, though I wouldn't brand the flow of revenues as "taxes" or "rent". If ICANN acknowledges its broader role and starts "investing" in ​broader causes of Global Public interest of importance to the Internet, then Michael Gurstein's "other points" are automatically answered. 

It is not clear that ICANN (or the rest of Internet identifier system) has an direct and 
inherent role to promote "global public interest", although successful administration of 
the Internet identifiers should definitely help contribute to that goal and thus result in 
the system doing its "share" towards global public interest with respect to the Internet.

There is, however, a question that needs to be asked related to resources and allocation, 
but it is more focused on the actual role of proper administration of the Internet identifier 
system itself, and whether or not there is an inherent responsibility to provide resources 
towards the principle of inclusiveness.  To wit, can a system commit to a value principle 
such as:

      " – Open and Inclusive: Discussions are open to all and structured to encourage the broadest range of relevant inputs from all interested parties. Input provided is valued and heard by all. All documents are freely available online. Processes for public comment and remote participation are provided wherever feasible, and without requirements for participation other than decorum. "

without also specifically supporting making resources available to interested parties who 
may not otherwise to be able to participate in discussions?   Some outreach/engagement
/capacity building of this nature is already being done, because it is recognized as both 
necessary and desirable, but that is different than enshrining it as a fundamental principle 
(and thus also imply the need for some objective measures of success?)

In the terms of fulfilling an "inclusiveness" objective, should it be required that a certain
amount of resources (in terms of percentage of total resources, or towards geographic 
coverage of participants, or some other metric) be provided for outreach and engagement 
measures?  How does one measure that such activities are successful, and administer 
them to avoid introduction of selection bias into the system and its outcomes?

If we revisit the entire Internet identifier registry system 20 years from now, will it be 
viewed as successful if resources aren't being provided for aiding the engagement of 
those who cannot otherwise afford to participate?  Do we need a more specific principle
and/or criteria regarding what constitutes "inclusiveness" to make sure that our future
Internet identifier system is performing as expected when it comes to inclusiveness and
the resources made available for this purpose?  In particular, do we need to specifically
need some form of principle that discusses resources being made available for the 
purpose of supporting inclusiveness?

There are folks with far more experience in capacity building and engagement building
than I, and it would be good to understand their expectations in this area (and hence
gain insight into aspects of the underlying principles that we might want to enshrine 
into the system itself.)

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140404/2da73b1f/attachment.html>