RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Chuck, if all you mean is that statements issuing from constituencies
have to document who supports them within a constituency we don't have a
disagreement.

 

But it's not hard to get a representative sample of a population of 9
registries. The problem is not even remotely comparable to determining
whether an entire SG adequately represents some broad class of actor
like "commercial entities."  I asked you to name a standard for doing
that. You didn't. I suggest that you can't. I suggest that, short of a
global electoral voting process, no one can. 

 

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; Metalitz, Steven; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking 

 

The RyC has long supported efforts to document representativeness.  For
quite awhile now we have provided data regarding the representativeness
specific to particular statements we submit into GNSO processes.
Granted it is easier for us but that does not mean that other
constituencies cannot provide similar data relative to their particular
community.  This to me seems to be about the only way we can attempt to
measure whether a group has been captured by a few individuals, a
problem for which there was large concern before the DNSO was originally
formed.

 

Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
        Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:05 PM
        To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking


         

        I view this as either controversial or meaningless. There are no
objective criteria for "representativeness" and "breadth" when it comes
to vast, global categories of users such as "commercial" or
"noncommercial."  I challenge you to name one that isn't either
something that all constituencies fail (e.g., one member from every
country with Internet access) or so poorly defined that anyone could
claim to meet it. 

         

        Lacking truly objective criteria, the standards will simply
become methods of harassing or attempting to de-legitimize
constituencies or decisions. I can support objective criteria for
qualifying as a stakeholder group (e.g., nondiscriminatory application
of membership criteria, rules designed to prevent capture and preserve
openness), but its absurd for any constituency or group to stand in
judgment of the degree to which another SG is "representative" and
"broad" enough. 

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
         

        Another point that should be retained from previous proposals is
that all stakeholder groups must meet objective criteria for
representativeness and breadth.  As I recall this was non-controversial,
but I am sure I will be corrected if my recollection is wrong!