Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Some Thoughts - resend with edit

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 21 Jul 2008, at 17:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I find Avri's insistence on a specific number for Nomcom, as if it  
> were a "constituency" or special interest group that deserves parity  
> of representation, to be wrongheaded and not even consistent with  
> the original basis for having nomcom. Nomcom's only function is to  
> introduce independent, non constituency based perspectives. Nomcom  
> is not an "interest" or stakeholder group that deserves a specific  
> quantity of representation.

Wrongheaded as I might be, I will explain one more time as I believe  
my reasons are being maligned as part of a political argument.
- i do not think nomcom is a constituency or should be treated like one
- i do not think that nomcom is a special interest group or should be  
treated like one
- i am not making claims for parity of representation, except that i  
think the nomcom appointees in each of the halves of the one house  
divided should be close to equal to each other.   Though I guess it is  
fair to say,  I also think the council would be better off with  
stronger NA participation because ICANN deserve a particular level of  
NA presence.
In fact it is just because they are not from constituencies and not  
from special interests group but people picked because they care about  
ICANN and promise to come and do their best for the public interest as  
they see it without being beholden to any special interest or  
constituency. Many, like myself, only volunteer after they have been  
recruited by the nomcom and have no prior interest in ICANN other then  
what they develop in the process of being volunteers.
My wrong headedness consists of thinking that it is ICANN that  
deserves independent thinking and voting in the crafting of policy.   
Just as the Board is partly made up of independent NAs I believe the  
policy recommendation group should be have a sufficient number of  
independent NAs to make a difference.
a.