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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Milton.  Helpful clarification.  I inserted a few responses
below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
        Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:33 PM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles
        
        

        Chuck,

         

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        
        

        Regarding 1), the nomcom reps add excellent value in providing
perspectives that may be unique from constituency views 

         

        MM replies: 

        There is simply no evidence of this "uniqueness". I agree that
individual Nomcom appointees may, at different times, add expertise and
important perspectives. What I am saying - and it's a subtle point so I
hope you catch the distinction - is that quality individuals who enter
the GNSO via the Nomcom could and would be able to enter it via the
Stakeholder Groups (SGs) of a reformed GNSO. And in fact it would be
better if they did.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I believe it would be fine if the entered via SGs
but I don't necessarily agree that it would be better.  As members of
SGs they would presumably be obligated to represent the views of their
SG or constituency within that SG.  As a NomCom rep they would have more
freedom to offer independent views.  I would qualify my opinion here
though to say that there may be other ways to encourage independent
thinking and maybe we should pursue those. 

         

        Avri, for example, is a member of two or three organizations
that have NCUC membership. She could, in the future, also join it as an
individual. If there are 5 or 6 Council representatives from a NCSG, I
have no doubt that she could get herself elected onto the Council via
the NCSG, if she wanted to. And knowing as I do the diversity of the
Noncommercial community, which includes people who want to censor the
internet as well as hard-core civil libertarians, churches and large
NGOs with trademark lawyers and critics of strong IPR, I think if you
provide us with 6 representatives there is no way they are all going to
vote or think the same. The different factions and coalitions will elect
a diverse crew. (But at least they will be accountable and elected, not
vetted)
        [Gomes, Chuck] Accountable to whom?  To the extent that SG reps
are indeed accountable to a broad base of stakeholders, I agree that
that is good.  But if the stakeholder group is not widely representative
of the affected community, that is not good because it does not reflect
the desired bottom-up process.

         

        If you fear bloc voting among the SGs, a simple solution to that
is to adopt a voting method within SGs that allows substantial minorites
to elect councilors, such as the single, transferable vote. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] I don't think I fear block voting.  I think it is
reasonable to expect that on some issues there will be block voting
because of common interests and needs; on other issues there will be
variation of blocks.  The voting history we have seen shows quite a bit
of variation in some perceived blocks.  At the same time, I think that
it may be worth considering the ability for SGs to allow for mixed
votes.  For example, in the RyC our Articles of Operation allow for the
sponsored gTLDs to cast a different vote.

         

        It seems to me that Nomcom appointees are either a) associated
with the noncommercial/public interest community primarily or b)
associated with the commercial interest community. The range of
variation in their views is not much different from the range of
variation in other GNSO participants' views. 

         

        With regard to 2), if the nomcom reps are indeed independent as
I believe the NomCom intends when they select them, I would expect that
it would not be at all uncommon for them to diverge rather than converge
in their views, and the fact that they have not in some cases is a good
sign.

         

        MM replies: 

        But that is what I was saying. We are in violent agreement here.
If Nomcom selects three people one of them is likely to side with NCUC a
lot, the other is likely to side with Rys and Rrs, the third may side
more often with BC et al. You might get the same result if you select
three people randomly off the street! 

        I don't see any principled difference between this situation and
adding another NC and C representative to the Council. But as I told
Avri, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Let's hear some explanation
and not mystical appeals to the magical properties of Nomcom appointees.