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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Totally agree with this.

The public interest is multivariate so the more people we have the better in 
some sense.  and i have never assumed that the concerns of a particular SG 
group are monolithic.  In fact, if the group was monolithic, fewer people would 
be concerned about what happened in the group trusting the few who are always 
the mouth pieces and fewer might sign up.  This is not a voting situation, so 
bigger body count shouldn't mean very much.  If we can't arrive at ideas that 
achieve some measure of rough consensus then it won't matter how many there are 
of one SG group.  In which case, the boards, default state will remain until 
such time as those ideas do emerge.

And in a organization like ICANN, it is only the confluence of various interest 
groups, both representing the organized SG and representing the divisiions 
within those SG, that can really show us the way to the public interest.

Though I do wish we had a few more GAC participant/observers.

a.


On 1 Apr 2010, at 05:44, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 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
>>  
>