Categorization was Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm ...

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 13 Jul 2008, at 16:15, <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>  
<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx> wrote:
> However I also struggle with the notion that the other parts of the  
> GNSO
> fall in to two clear categories; contracted parties and consumers.
> Sticking broad labels on those groups is one of the biggest
> misconceptions within ICANN. So far the IPC, BC and ISPs have been
> called 'providers', 'IP Interest Group' and now linking with both the
> NCUC and ALAC we all become 'consumers'. Its also worth saying that  
> not
> only have these terms been adopted by some parties when it suits their
> interest, they're also dropped just as quickly when it suits as well.
> The change in terminology used within the BCG process being a prime
> example. The term 'providers' was dropped liked a hot brick after it  
> was
> repeatedly pointed out that the ISPs even have the word 'provider' in
> their name.

There are obviously a few different principles along we can can chunk  
the constituencies into categories.  For example we could argue that  
there are currently 5 Commercial Constituencies and 1 Non Commercial  
Constituency and argue that this imbalance is unfair.  I am not sure  
how far we would get with that logic.
As you point out, we could argue that there are 3 provider  
constituencies and 3 consumer constituencies.  I must admit when I  
first joined the GNSO, I did not understand why this wasn't the  
default categorization.  Did not take long to understand why.
Quite quickly I learned that one essential category was defined by  
contractual conditions:
- Those who have a contract with ICANN and who have contractual  
conditions that are subject to the consensus policy.  This is what I  
am terming the picket fence imperative.
- Those who have a contract with those who are contracted to ICANN.   
This category is also being seen to include those who are affected by  
the actions of those contracted parties without having an explicit  
contract with them (this is a notion I originally resisted, but am now  
acquiescing to)
So there is a certain sense in this categorization.

In writing this it has occurred to me that perhaps we are losing  
something important in giving up weighted voting.  There was a certain  
sense in having smaller Registrar and Registry prescence on the  
council (the disproportion that Philip has spoken of albeit in a  
different context) but giving them a equal vote on things that dealt  
with consensus policy.  While one can argue that everything the policy  
council does is policy, only some of it is consensus policy the  
affects the picket fence.
Assuming that we may not find a consensus between 4x4+3 and 666 (+ or  
- 3) with unweighted voting, perhaps we will need to consider weighted  
voting again in order to find something we can all agree on.
a.