I don’t want to be overly harsh, because ICANN-bashing is getting pretty old and tired. Even so, it’s hard not to think that these wounds aren’t largely self-inflicted. By how many orders of magnitude has the task increased since Jon Postel ran IANA single-handedly? Why is it such a big job? Is work being created to fill the available time and budget in the style of Parkinson’s Law? Apropos of that, “Parkinson also proposed a rule about the efficiency of administrative councils. He defines a coefficient of inefficiency with the number of members as the main explaining variable.”

We can talk a lot about the actual work being done.
It’s quite easy to say, “well, Jon was doing all this work alone”.
I’d agree. But then, why are you comparing apples to pears? I am not going to defend ICANN, as I am not working there. I do a lot of work for ICANN, but that’s pro-bono.
2006 is different from 1996. I can give many examples of why today the Internet can not be run as it used to be. I am sure that you are aware of all the different stakeholders who showed up in the last 10 years, and who require their part of the way the Internet is being working. If ICANN didn’t exist, it would have been created by now - that’s for sure. And it would have been with at least 50 % governmental participation. At least.

Veni - governments are going to have a substantial role, like it or not.  It is like that old question - “where does a 800 pound gorilla sleep?”.  Answer - “wherever it wants to” :)

But seriously they do have a role.  So - let them have it .. improve GAC processes and engage them more effectively.  And see how you can participate effectively in the WSIS process (its not all governments there, and all the governments are not Zimbabwe, China and Cuba..).

You and Joi Ito bring a certain amount of transparency into the workings of the board that’s highly appreciated.  You just dont need as much tech cred (though that’s very good to have) - as you do people skills and diplomacy in the sort of post you’re in.

Sure you’re going to get significant opposition from half or more of the people that are actually affected by any board decision

I’m not even beginning to take into account the real or imagined effect the “blogosphere” has on this process ..

But there has to be sufficiently open dialog that people can raise the same issues for discussion in ICANN, and they’d have to prefer it to simply kvetching on blogs about it, and only grudgingly accepting ICANN because the alternative is that “Robert Mugabe is going to run the Internet” .. now how short sighted is that.

The commentators who are using typical EFF (or their right wing counterparts) style “blog activism” and political lobbyist tactics in this is not going to be very productive or useful .. and those action irritates people who were once their strongest supporters. 

eg: I find myself comparing the EFF to Karl Rove, and that’s something I never imagined I’d do eight or ten years back.

I’m truly astounded that 25,000 e-mails can be sent, with as little externally visible productive work accomplished.  As a counter-example, the Linux-Kernel list averages some 300 or so pieces of mail a day, but differs in two major respects:

1) “Note that nobody reads every post in linux-kernel.  In fact, nobody who expects to have time left over to actually do any real kernel work will read even half.  Except Alan Cox, but he’s actually not human, but about a thousand gnomes working in under-ground caves in Swansea.  None of the individual gnomes read all the postings either,  they just work together really well.”

      - Linus Torvalds

2) There’s actual Linux kernel releases every once in a while.. :)

(And yes, I’m fully aware that purely political issues take a lot more e-mail exchanges to resolve than merely technical ones….  But I’m still astounded by the volume. :)

Veni,
Thanks for sharing excellent data - this is exactly the kind of information that candidates ask for and that’s not easily available.

ICANN directors have a tough road - they must conduct due diligence while being pro-bono and often having a “day job”.

Still, the role on the board helps shape dialogue and discource and direction in the tld namespace and remains important and relevant.

So given Valdis’ comments about kernel development, and Veni’s breakup of the time he’s got to spend doing ICANN related work

Is there any workflow management or optimization called for here, so that ICANN governance and day to day operational processes are streamlined and made a bit more efficient?

Putting all ICANN stuff on a single groupware platform (maybe online, or maybe migrating icann.org to use Lotus Notes or something similar might help, for starters [though processes, chains of command and such would have to be rationalized as well].

I use linux and thunderbird or mailx for most of my mail, but migrating to groupware still sounds like one possible way to go here, especially as you’re going to spend most of your time doing nothing but handling lots and lots of documents and passing them around for a series of edits and comments.

Ram,
actually I made some little errors. For example, the meetings last not 8 hours per day, but actually 16 hours a day. So each meeting should be multiplied by two - that is, instead of 3x8 + 2x4 (32 days), it should be 3x8x2 + 2x4x2 (64 days), or instead of 26 weeks, we’ll have 32 working weeks.

I don’t even want to go into details about the fact that these meetings include always one, and sometimes two weekends, and the days during the weekends also need to be doubled. And the fact that we sleep away from home and family…

I think that the NomCom must seriously think about the whole process, or else we’ll end up having either retired people, or academics, or people working for companies that don’t care their employees are spending a lot of time on ICANN board work.

Er Veni .. I’d be interested in finding out who else can do this.  On their own time and money.

You’re either very rich and socially conscious, already traveling such a lot that ICANN wont make more than a small part of your work schedule

Or you’re a retired academic

Or you are a social activist who scrimps and saves and doesnt mind the huge bite that icann takes out of your money, time, sanity etc [even if your expenses are theoretically covered, travel often enough and you’ll find yourself wondering where all your own bank balance is getting eaten away bit by bit ..]

Or your company is delighted at having you in ICANN so they foot all your bills, hire someone else to do most if not all your work for you etc.

That’s just what the nomcom is going to get, one way or the other.  Unless ICANN finds its way to giving the board members something like a liveable wage for their term of service, and requires that they take a sabbatical from their usual jobs during the time they remain on board.

[that’s a whole new can of worms of course]

Actually, when I was applying, no one ever told me that I will have to spend half of my working time for that. If I knew, I’d have probably reconsider my willingess to help ICANN.

Oh, and I forgot - on top of the time one spends on ICANN, there are always people who are not happy with the work we do. And I constantly get blamed as, “you, ICANN”. Although I am just a director with strict term and responsibilities. Perhaps the critics should apply for the board? Or I should go to join the staff.

veni

> Perhaps the critics should apply for the
> board?

And do some real work for a change? :)

> Or I should go to join the staff.

Ah, that’s an idea.

Veni,
I serve on a few non-profit and for-profit boards myself, and have a smidgeon of understanding of the time commitments that you’re speaking of (the non-profits are all pro-bono).

Two observations:
1. The Board is being asked to do too many things that do not have to do with “steering the organization”, or “maintaining fiduciary controls”, or “providing strategic direction”.  As a result, the balooning of work that all falls on the Board is untenable.

2. The Board does not have sufficient mechanisms to either push back the load, or to form special subcommittees that will digest issues and arrive at recommendations.

A corollary: with this level of work, the Board would need to be assigned full-time help from the staff side, at a sufficiently senior level.  Bereft of that assistance, Board members will have no recourse but to either slog through all the material, or to selectively ignore topics that may be strategically important but are not urgent enough.

The facts make a striking argument for changing the processes that involve the Board, rather than changing the type of people who are nominated.  Without this change, qualified candidates will step back because the workload is too intimidating.

Ram, please dont tell me this hasn’t yet occured to current or former board members?

Quite a few of them have years of senior management experience, some in companies that have a turnover of several million dollars, at least.

What has been done so far, and what, in your observation, is the function of the ICANN staff, and their interaction with the board?

What has been done so far to improve / streamline workflow?

etc etc.

Suresh, it’s a good thing that several senior level people, with prior executive and administrative roles involving global business and government and law have been nominated to the board.  This is a good thing, not bad.

I do not agree that “retired folks” or “senior level people at large companies” or “academics” are bad for the board.  If it’s

them, then we have a representativeness issue.

ICANN, represented by its staff and its board deal with many issues, some of them extraordinarily delicate. Staff is receptive to input, but often smothered in work.  But - it must suck to do so much and be consistently criticized, even when you had no role in a decision - whether you are staff or a Board member.

Part of this is good - after all, you don’t need to be “invited” to participate in many things ICANN does.  We’ve all seen articulate individuals with strong opinions and avaialable time be able to make a difference in policy and other positions.

Ram, you are right.
Here are some solutions, which already have been proposed:

1. Move the work to the committees. That will lower the number of e-mails dramatically.
2. Create web space for discussion - same result.
3. Think about reimbursing not only travel and stay, but also time - at least to some extent that will give people the opportunity to take non-paid leave from their work.
4. Staff is quite concerned with this, too, and is doing what it takes to make sure things improve.

My article was to bring the attention of the community to a fact.

You missed my point, Ram.  ICANN has some great people working for it on the board, now and earlier as well.

My point is simply that the entire workflow could do with some substantial amounts of improvement, including what Veni suggested ..

1. Improve workflow with wikis and groupware

2. Board and staff must evolve effective mechanisms to delegate work and process the results of such work

3. Investigate the provision of a honorarium for board members.  Not CEO type multi million dollar salaries - but something that acknowledges the time and effort they put in.  Sure, airfare and hotel stay is reimbursed but is that enough compensation?

Getting into the ICANN board seems to me like it is open season for critics to go for your throat, whatever you say or do .. kind of like what happens to Daffy Duck in that “Rabbit Season, Duck Season” cartoon.

Take all these factors into account, along with the earlier circleid post you made about finding people to nominate to ICANN.  See how many people get convinced enough to run for board elections.

Make it easy for them to function and you’ll automatically get more volunteers .. deserving candidates with more service orientedness and far fewer dilettantes / people with vested interests.

Given ICANN’s budget, it seems that even generous salaries and Notes for the Board and related staff would be expenses so small as to be immaterial.  ICANN can’t agree to implement even basic honoraria or groupware tools (other than mailing lists). Wow.