RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

You nailed it, AVC. Only thing missing from your analysis is the "status quo 
bias" created by consensus requirements, which I pinpointed earlier.

> -----Original Message-----
>
> The failure is in recognizing the limitations of a consensus model.
> Disagreement will always have an important advantage -- only a few
> people can create a disagreement, while an agreement takes everyone.
> War is ontologically superior to peace, as the philosopher said.
>
> A consensual deliberative model requires for its success, among other
> things, a shared set of values, such as is found among Quakers or IETF
> standard setters or the Royal Society.   Consensus can be wrecked by
> any small group with determination, which can easily spring up where
> people's livelihoods are at stake.
>
> As ICANN grows larger and attracts more members, the problem will grow
> worse, because the values of the group will become more and more
> fragmented as they begin to reflect those of the world at large.
> Furthermore, the proceedings are likely to become even slower as the
> group struggles to find common ground even as it becomes rarer and
> rarer. People will disagree and then someone has to decide.  It's what
> the Board is for.   If we are to preserve a model of consensus within
> ICANN, we must be willing to hand over some decisions to the Board.
>
> Unfortunately, that handing over of decision-making power to the Board
> will lead to the demise of "bottom up" policy making.  As ICANN grows
> more diverse, and less consensus is reached, the "executive branch" of
> ICANN will be strengthened, at the expense of the SOs.   The primary,
> perhaps only, benefit to a model of decision by majority vote, or even
> supermajority vote, is that is removes the veto power from small groups
> while still retaining the decision power within a large group.  At
> ICANN, the decision power is with the Board, which has already reserved
> to itself all powers, to be used in its absolute discretion.  It will
> use those powers more and more as the community makes fewer decisions,
> and makes them more slowly.
>
> This is the reality already -- there are those in this group who lobby
> furiously -- but they don't lobby us, they lobby the Board.
>
> Antony
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:46 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
> >
> > The failure to reach consensus, may not be a failure to some, but
> whatever the board will come up with will make it become a failure to
> some. Effectively handing a decision we were tasked with making back to
> the board for them to find an adequate solution feels like a failure of
> ICANN decision making processes to me.
> >
> > Volker
> >> As many of you know, I have long held the view that failure to reach
> >> consensus is not a failure.  It likely means that there may not be
> >> consensus and that is very useful information and an indication that
> >> market forces should be allowed to work.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> >>> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Cute
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:06 AM
> >>> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'vertical integration wg'
> >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical
> Integration
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Avri,
> >>>
> >>> The only point I would take up is I don't view this WG as a
> "failure."
> >>> It
> >>> was given extremely limited time to address an extremely complex
> issue
> >>> without requisite expertise and resources.  Yes the constellation
> of
> >>> interests around the table did not lend to quick and easy
> consensus.
> >>> But
> >>> this WG coming to this result given the factors I cited should not
> be
> >>> viewed
> >>> as a failure.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:45 AM
> >>> To: vertical integration wg
> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical
> Integration
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have not issue with continuing for the longer term solution.  But
> >>> only if
> >>> there is realistic notion that someday, somehow we may achieve
> >>> consensus on
> >>> an approach.
> >>>
> >>> The idea of a interminable succession of meetings like the one
> >>> yesterday
> >>> where we could not even agree on having meetings fill me with
> dread.
> >>> We
> >>> would have to have a commitment from all of us to come back to the
> >>> table
> >>> with a sincere intention fo compromise.  And I just don't see that
> >>> happening
> >>> at this point.  I used to believe that the stakeholders in the GNSO
> >>> could be
> >>> brought to consensus eventually on most any subject.  This group
> has
> >>> dashed
> >>> that faith.
> >>>
> >>> As for a simple yes or no poll.  We have seen with every poll, how
> >>> after the
> >>> poll, lots of people argued about what it meant and whether enough
> >>> people
> >>> had voted and whether we should tell anyone or not. We cannot even
> >>> achieve
> >>> consensus on the value of a poll.  So if there is a poll, I will
> vote
> >>> in it.
> >>> But I have no confidence that it will resolve anything.  It we do
> have
> >>> a
> >>> poll we better discuss the wording of the poll on the list first -
> >>> though I
> >>> am concerned we may not even be able to decide on wording on a
> poll.
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes after a failure, it is best to give up for a while.  And
> try
> >>> again
> >>> someday in the future once we see what the Board actually decides
> and
> >>> see
> >>> how well whatever they works in the new gTLD process that may
> >>> eventually
> >>> commence.
> >>>
> >>> a.
> >>>
> >>> On 28 Sep 2010, at 13:19, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Mikey, I was not really commenting on whether this was the right
> or
> >>> wrong
> >>> thing to do, but rather the process by which the decision was
> reached.
> >>>> For the record, if we issue a final report, Council would need to
> >>> initiate
> >>> a new PDP (starting with an Issues Report) in order to go back to
> >> work.
> >>> Again, not commenting on whether this would be a good or bad path,
> but
> >>> rather that we make the decision understanding the impact.
> >>>> And this is indeed a case where (in my opinion) and simple yes no
> >>> poll on
> >>> whether to continue or not, might be a reasonable thing to do
> >> (deciding
> >>> ahead of time how we judge the outcome).
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>> At 28/09/2010 10:29 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >>>>> hi Alan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i'm tempted....<slaps himself in the face, twice>   no...  i
> won't
> >>> do a
> >>> poll....  :-)
> >>>>> we've had a number of comments on the list prior to the call
> >>> yesterday
> >>> that basically said that it's time to acknowledge the deep
> divisions
> >>> within
> >>> the group and wrap things up.  i may have committed an error by not
> >>> making
> >>> it clear on the call that when we talk about finishing a Final
> Report
> >>> we're
> >>> actually speaking in code and saying "end this phase of the work of
> >> the
> >>> PDP
> >>> WG."   but that's what we were doing.
> >>>>> it's time to hand this back to the Council and the Board.  the
> >> Board
> >>> will
> >>> make the VI decision for this round of gTLDs and the Council can
> >>> evaluate
> >>> what (if any) work should be done on VI prior to the next round of
> >>> gTLDs.
> >>> the frenzied task of trying to arrive at consensus on VI in time
> for
> >>> *this*
> >>> round of gTLDs is out of our hands now.  that's what we decided
> when
> >> we
> >>> elected not to go into hyper-frenzy mode and try to find something
> by
> >>> tomorrow.
> >>>>> the approach to handling the VI issue for the *next* round of
> gTLDs
> >>> should go back to the Council for reevaluation -- this is the very
> >>> largest
> >>> working group ever, it consumes a stupendous amount of GNSO
> resources
> >>> and
> >>> attention, and circumstances have changed now that the GNSO VI
> Working
> >>> Group
> >>> out of the critical path to new gTLDs.  we've sketched that phase
> out
> >>> in
> >>> some of our informal documentation, but never got approval from the
> >>> Council
> >>> to do it.
> >>>>> it's appropriate for the Council, as the body responsible for
> >>> managing
> >>> the policy-development process, to reaffirm whether to continue
> >> working
> >>> on
> >>> VI now that the current-round decision is out of its hands.   they
> now
> >>> have
> >>> the chance to look at the situation and decide whether to redirect
> >>> those
> >>> resources to other more pressing issues.  if the Council comes back
> >> and
> >>> says
> >>> "yes, we want a WG to do a 'normal' PDP and spend a year or so
> >> figuring
> >>> out
> >>> what to do about VI in the next gTLD round" then so be it and i'll
> >>> cheerfully be a part of that gang, but this is the right time to
> >>> provide the
> >>> Council with the opportunity to make that call.
> >>>>> i'm off to test a new hydrofoil on the boat, so i may be sluggish
> >> in
> >>> replying for a while.
> >>>>> mikey
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:16 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Mikey, a substantive decision seems to have been made, and I do
> >>> not
> >>> recall any real discussion about it, other than a very cursory one
> on
> >>> today's teleconference.
> >>>>>> This group started as a formal PDP, admittedly with the caveat
> >>> that the
> >>> process not delay the launch of new gTLDs.
> >>>>>> The Board motion that we have been discussing today ended with
> >> "At
> >>> the
> >>> time a policy conclusion is reached by the GNSO, it can be included
> in
> >>> the
> >>> applicant guidebook for future application rounds." That sounds
> like
> >>> they
> >>> were expecting us to continue working towards consensus.
> >>>>>> If we are considering closing up shop and do not plan to look at
> >>> the
> >>> issue further (thus giving the Board the responsibility of setting
> the
> >>> VI
> >>> terms for the long-term and not just the short-term), then this
> should
> >>> be
> >>> the result of formal action on the part of the WG (or the Council
> if
> >>> they
> >>> want to pull the plug).
> >>>>>> Alan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At 27/09/2010 04:31 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> here's a summary of the decision we arrived at on the call this
> >>> afternoon.
> >>>>>>> -- we've decided to submit a notice to the Council (and thus
> >>> indirectly to the Board, in response to their resolution) that the
> WG
> >>> has
> >>> not arrived at a consensus view as of now -- Roberto and i will
> draft
> >>> it and
> >>> get it off some time tomorrow
> >>>>>>> -- we'll aim for having a Final Report ready for the Council
> >>> meeting
> >>> on 18 November, and the primary task in that effort will be to
> >>> incorporate
> >>> public comments into the Interim document.
> >>>>>>> that concludes my report.  :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mikey
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - - - - - - - - -
> >>>>>>> phone   651-647-6109
> >>>>>>> fax             866-280-2356
> >>>>>>> web     http://www.haven2.com
> >>>>>>> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter,
> Facebook,
> >>> Google, etc.)
> >>>>> - - - - - - - - -
> >>>>> phone   651-647-6109
> >>>>> fax             866-280-2356
> >>>>> web     http://www.haven2.com
> >>>>> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> >>> Google,
> >>> etc.)
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> >
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> >
> > Volker A. Greimann
> > - Rechtsabteilung -
> >
> > Key-Systems GmbH
> > Im Oberen Werk 1
> > 66386 St. Ingbert
> > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> > www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> >
> > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> > www.key-systems.net/facebook
> > www.twitter.com/key_systems
> >
> > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> > Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
> >
> > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
> angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
> Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
> unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
> bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung
> zu setzen.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
> contact us.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Volker A. Greimann
> > - legal department -
> >
> > Key-Systems GmbH
> > Im Oberen Werk 1
> > 66386 St. Ingbert
> > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> > www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> >
> > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
> updated:
> > www.key-systems.net/facebook
> > www.twitter.com/key_systems
> >
> > CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> > V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> >
> > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
> whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
> content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely
> on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected
> this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or
> contacting us by telephone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>