Re: [gnso-whois-wg] GAC role? (was: Statement of Interest)
Dear Dan, Your questions are a digression indeed, but certainly worth adressing as background. Not speaking on behalf of the whole GAC of course and without opening up the debate, a few quick answers to your important questions : On the main point, the answer is straightforward : there is no such thing as a "formal veto authority" for the GAC, period. At the same time, whatever Whois system comes out of this working group must take into account the competence of national authorities and the rules that apply in their respective jusridictions. This is actually what makes the whole issue so interesting ... Hence the benefit of involving interested GAC members to get the whole picture early on. It would be long to get into the details but we can talk about it offlist or in one of the ICANN meetings. In general, the relations between the ICANN community and the GAC members are evolving constantly, and I feel it is in a good direction. The challenge is to find what is most beneficial in terms of process and what allows to achieve the best outcome for all. I strongly believe that the first element is to reduce mistrust and enhance mutual confidence between actors who do not speak together often enough and particularly not early enough on too many issues. This is why I personally want to engage in this working group, to concretely contribute to a more collaborative approach (did I say more multi-stakeholder ? :-). Talking about multi-stakeholderism, your remark about the interest of involving ALAC is pertinent. I believe that is the case, isn't it ? Anyway, this is the decision of the WG chair or the GNSO as they are the ones who have set up the group. As for some of your other questions, without getting into detail either, they have a lot of relevance to the scientific domain called "game theory" : - as for "stick(ing) to its own silo until it is time for the silos to come together to negotiate", theoretical modeling and the study of negociation dynamics show that the silo approach can often make the final consensus more difficult than early open discussion : the silo approach catalyzes and sometimes cristallizes positions on different tracks that can become harder to reconcile later on; fits with my personal experience by the way; does not mean that constituencies should not discuss or define positions among themselves; there is a need for a balance here; - the approach : "the extremes define the middle" is most appropriate for uni-dimensional issues where a single parameter must be set (a level of taxes for instance or a price). But it does not work the same for multi-dimensional issues - a case we often encounter within ICANN; in that case, the "middle" can just be a bad solution on all counts while the optimal solution is based on a very specific balance of parameters that can only be identified by bringing all the actors together and testing many different combinations; in game theory, this is called "exploring the fitness landscape of possible solutions". Went a bit off track because of your remarks, but hope it is useful. It's sometimes important to remember that however innovative our processes try to be, there are well-known complex dynamics that are at play in them. We need to be aware of these dynamics to help build consensus and avoid vicious feedback loops that prevent it. Best Bertrand On 5/1/07, Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
|