RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Composition of Working Group Members

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

 

Just to be clear I am not proposing any limitation on this WG composition,
the more the merrier. While I appreciate the tight time line that we face as
a group,  I am just trying to be mindful of how the work product of this
group needs to be consistent with the AoC.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:02 AM
To: 'Michael D. Palage'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Composition of Working Group Members

 

Michael,

First of all, I have the impression that the AoC and the WG consensus are
orthogonal issues, as the AoC commits on ICANN performing analyses of the
results while it does not put limitations on the WG composition.

About the WG composition, and related consensus building, let me answer with
my hats of "former GNSO Review WG Chair" and "former SIC Chair". The issue
has been debated at length in the WG and SIC, and the point was that, while
we had to ensure representation of all point of views, to the maximum extent
possible and feasible, there should be no enforcement of limits to
participation. As a matter of fact, the big change should be that we move
out from "proportional" (or at least attempt to be proportional) composition
with representatives of all constituencies to a completely open structure,
recognizing that the "proportional" composition would have mirrored balance
of powers of other bodies, like the old Name Council where representation
was by constituency, and was therefore going to be unable to act in a
different way.

Of course, the problem that you point out (i.e. how to declare consensus if
one "party" is in overwhelming majority) is a real problem, ad the position
of the WG (and later on of the SIC) has been that this risk would have been
mitigated by the experience of the Chairs, who would have not looked just at
the number of votes one position would have but also to the whole spectrum
of interests and opinions.

I understand that this can be a "non-answer", as I cannot define a
mechanistic procedure that the Chair can apply to define consensus, but just
the good old "I recognize consensus when I see it". So, in summary, the
proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we will know if the co-chairs
would have done a good job only at the end, when the community will see
whether the recommendations of this WG will work (which means that a
reasonable compromise has been reached) or will not work (which means that
the solution was not a consensus).

Putting back my VI-WG Co-Chair hat on, let me express my concern, which is
that given the time constraints we should limit as much as possible and
feasible discussions that do not have as a primary goal to put some ideas on
the table, and maybe even some examples, related on how we can introduce
some elements of vertical integration in the status-quo situation, which is
of separation. Once we have these elements on the table, it would be the
co-chairs' task to detect whether what might look like an overwhelming
majority is a real consensus, or just the effect of having one homogeneous
block vocally powerful in presenting a position.

Best regards,

Roberto

 

 

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Thursday, 01 April 2010 01:50
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Composition of Working Group Members

Hello All:

 

I would just like to raise a point of concern publicly with the co-chairs.
Having tracked the recent influx of new Working Group members, aside from
the addition of Arif Aslam Kundi, the Pakistan GAC representative, it
appears that we have just been adding more of the same
demographics/viewpoints.  We now have a Working Group heavily dominated by
entities with a direct/material interest in connection with the outcome of
this Policy Development Process, myself included.

 

The Affirmation of Commitment specifically states:

 

"ICANN and DOC recognize that there is a group of participants that engage
in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally. To
ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not just the
interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to perform and
publish analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions on
the public, including any financial impact on the public, and the positive
or negative impact (if any) on the systemic security, stability and
resiliency of the DNS."

 

Therefore I would like to ask the Co-Chairs how they intend to approach
defining consensus within a group which lacks large blocks of stakeholders
not meaningfully participating within this Working Group.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael