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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

my reading of the AoC is that ICANN needs to act in the public interest.  As 
long as this WG focuses on the public interest, as opposed to specific 
stakeholder interests, I don't think it matters who is on the WG.

RT


On Apr 1, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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
>