Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In one statement you are highly offended that I refer to NCUC as ICANN  
insiders yet in another you say that nomcom apintees are picked by:
> > I would like for you to explain to me what makes Nomcom appointees  
> > less
> > "insiders" than the user constituencies, when they are heavily vetted
> > and selected in secret by people who have been appointed by, well,  
> > ICANN
> > insiders! (i.e., specially selected representatives of GNSO
> > constituencies, the Board, ALAC, etc.)
including, I will point out NCUC constituency members

I submit that your argument is self contradictory.

--

the following was contributed by Olga when I gave  a report of what  
was going on in the meeting (no names or constituencies were  
referenced - as per our agreement)
> I would like to add something I already posted in the public  
> comments space in relation with the new travel  policy and that  
> resumes, at least from my view and perspective, our role as noncomm  
> appointees.
> This was said to me by ICANN and in this respect I accepted the  
> position and committed my work, time and effort:
> "A noncom appointee is someone that serves in key leadership  
> positions within the ICANN structure".
> This means that we must also work participate and vote in the GNSO.
>
> "Noncom Appointee´s participation seeks and supports broad, informed  
> participation reflecting the functional, geographic and cultural  
> diversity of the Internet at all policy development and decision- 
> making."
> "Noncom appointees are challenged to use their knowledge,  
> experience, and open-mindedness to develop creative responses to the  
> dilemmas that arise when diverse needs of Internet users, technical  
> possibilities and limitations of the Internet's unique identifier  
> systems, and challenges and opportunities of the competitive  
> business environment interact with each other and with evolving laws  
> and governmental policies."
> For these reasons, Noncom Appointees should be present in face to  
> face meetings in order to maintain their role of independent voices  
> and representatives of broad participation, with geographic and  
> cultural diversity, in the Internet policy development and decision- 
> making.
> If Noncom Appointee´s do not work and vote within the Supporting  
> Organizations, their role of representatives of the broad community  
> into ICANN´s policy making process, including regional and gender  
> balance, will be diminished or even will disappear.

a.

On 13 Jul 2008, at 19:04, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Avri:
> I feel a bit wounded, but more puzzled, by your characterization of  
> all
> GNSO constituencies as a bunch of "insiders." The idea seems almost
> laughably out of place when applied to the advocacy groups,
> universities, nonprofit foundations and community groups of the  
> NCUC. A
> new, expanded NCSG and CSG also will have individuals, which further
> opens them up.
>
> I would like a better explanation from you of what Nomcom appointees  
> add
> to the mix that is not added by the presence of independent,
> member-elected user interests in the form of Noncommercial and
> Commercial Stakeholders Groups.
>
> I would like for you to explain to me what makes Nomcom appointees  
> less
> "insiders" than the user constituencies, when they are heavily vetted
> and selected in secret by people who have been appointed by, well,  
> ICANN
> insiders! (i.e., specially selected representatives of GNSO
> constituencies, the Board, ALAC, etc.)
>
> Let's face it. Nomcom appointees, at best, are the equivalent of
> independent user representatives. But if we reform GNSO properly, I  
> see
> those kinds of voices getting into the GNSO Council via either of the
> user stakeholder groups. The more I think about it, the more  
> difficulty
> I am having understanding the special status you attribute to Nomcom
> appointees. My mind is not closed on this issue, but the case you are
> making increasingly appears to be a weak one. Can you turn me around?
>
> If the GNSO Council was a group of business supplier interests
> exclusively, the idea of an independently appointed "public interest
> ombudspersons" would make a lot of sense. But it seems to me that with
> 4, 5 or 6 each of commercial and noncommercial users interests
> represented, the idea of GNSO becoming a cartel-like cabal that 3  
> Nomcom
> appointees can save us from looks not very plausible.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> > wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:09 PM
> > To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do not agree with the conclusions you draw from your analysis.
> >
> > The main point is the nomcom provides the possibility for a tie
> > breaker should the vote break along the contracted party - consumer
> > lines.  And I believe this is necessary.
> >
> > I also do not agree the it is sufficient to give the nomcom's outside
> > voice a seat at the table while disenfranchising that voice.  I
> > believe that vote is critical in keeping the policy process from
> > becoming, or looking like, a trust of insiders who are constantly
> > trading advantage.  I also believe that the logic that dictates that
> > outside voices are  legally necessary in the Board's decisions also
> > pertains in the policy recommendation stage - especially since the
> > GNSO can force by its supermajority, the board into a supermajority
> > voting requirement.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > On 11 Jul 2008, at 18:05, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> >
> > > Reflecting on our useful discussion yesterday re role of Nom Comm
> > > appointees to the GNSO council:
> > > One reason given was a tie-breaking role in voting.  I went back and
> > > looked at the "GNSO Council voting patterns 2005-2008" document
> > > prepared
> > > by staff in Paris.  Of the "28 voting events taken by roll call and
> > > showing identifiable votes per constituency, where the outcome was
> not
> > > unanimous" (these were the shaded entries in the document), I did
> not
> > > find any which would have been tie votes but for the votes cast by
> Nom
> > > Comm appointees.
> > > I did find two votes out of 28 in which (if I counted correctly) the
> > > Nom
> > > Comm appointee votes created a 2/3 majority of those voting which
> > > would
> > > not otherwise have existed.  Neither of these involved a
> > > recommendation
> > > being sent to the Board where the presence of a 2/3 supermajority on
> > > the
> > > Council would have made a difference. One was a vote on whether to
> > > send
> > > a letter regarding travel funding (3 Jan 08); the other was a vote
> on
> > > one of the two proposed formulations of the purpose of Whois, which
> > > was
> > > intended to guide future work on policy development but not (at that
> > > point) to be sent to the Board (12 April 06).
> > > It is always possible that councillors changed the votes they would
> > > otherwise have cast to avoid having the Nom Comm appointees break a
> > > tie.
> > > I don't know any examples of that; perhaps some of the council
> members
> > > on this list do.
> > > I found the council voting patterns chart a bit hard to follow (you
> > > need
> > > to double the votes in the first two columns to account for weighted
> > > voting, abstentions are not noted, etc.) and I certainly might have
> > > miscounted, so I would welcome anyone else checking my work, but
> > > what I
> > > saw suggests that the tie-breaking role of Nom Comm appointees has
> not
> > > been significant, at least for the past four years.
> > > This leaves the role of these appointees in "bringing new voices" to
> > > the
> > > table, or in providing expertise that the Council needs but that
> > > constituency reps cannot provide.  As we discussed to some extent
> > > yesterday, if these roles are important, we should consider whether
> > > they
> > > can be fulfilled in other ways, such as through representation of
> > > At-Large on the Council, or through appointed experts who could
> > > serve on
> > > the council in a non-voting capacity.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > -