Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] a possible wrinkle

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 20 Jul 2008, at 11:45, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> To suggest at this stage of the game
> that we start fiddling with the definition and structure of
> constituencies is not very helpful.

i understand why Jon thinks it it is not relevant as his suggestion is  
for contracted party vs. non-contracted party as opposed to provider  
vs client which was the path i think the BGC took.  Is the bicameral  
split offered the only one that might make sense, if any bi-cameral  
split actually does make sense at this point in time for this  
orgnization.
but when we are thinking on wiping out nomcom appointees and thinking  
of dividing the council into two, to say that we cannot think of  
'fiddling' with the definitions of constituencies is to remove one of  
the degrees of freedom in the exercise.  i thought one of the reasons  
we started fiddling with the number of nomcom appointees even though  
that was not in the original mandate as I understood it was because we  
were going to explore an open field.

in any case I also want to point out that I have spoken with my fellow  
Nomcom appointees and:
- we do not support the complexity of the bicameral solution as it  
does not seem to us to provide any real change while making things  
much more complicated.  but perhaps some can show how it is solving  
the problem.  I just do not see it at this point.
- we cannot support any proposal that disenfranchises and destroys the  
Nomcom model.
while some members of this committee have deprecated the nomcom and  
its appointees as a purely insider game with no accountability,  most  
of the people who have served as nomcom appointee feel obliged to do  
their best to support the public interests as they understand and feel  
that our accountability is in that we will not be renewed in 2 years  
if we do not fulfill that role or can be expelled by the council  
itself.  there may be better  ways to pick outside appointees then the  
nomcom, but that is not what we are here to argue about, i.e. we are  
not here to fiddle with nomcom.  I believe, and am supported by other  
council nomcom appointees in this view that 3 voting nomcom appointees  
chosen to represent general public interests is a necessary component  
of any solution that has full consensus of this WG.  while we were  
willing to talk about giving up one of the votes if the nomcom was  
somehow put in a permanent chairing position that does not seem to be  
on the table at this point, so the discussion is moot.
In my personal view it would be better is the proportion of  
constituency to nomcom selected were more similar to the board's ratio  
(though parity between constituency reps and noncom appointees would  
be ok as well), but I know that is something that would not stand a  
chance of getting consensus and hence I have not recommended it or  
discussed it with my fellow NAs.
a.