True! I can reveal that our diplomats on the ground are working round the clock to resolve this issue amicably. Now preparing to tune into 'gnso online' for a live feed of their deliberations;) appreciated.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Dan Krimm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com">dan@musicunbound.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Okay, okay. I thought it was pertinent to express just how far NPOC<br>
leadership had crossed the line here, and what that appears to say about<br>
their fundamental motives. But right now it's up to the Board to decide<br>
how to respond about the election. Assuming the Board doesn't allow the<br>
election to be questioned (and acts promptly to communicate that decision),<br>
we can give everyone another chance to play nice.<br>
<br>
One hopes this exhausts appeals to higher authorities and efforts to<br>
re-shape precedent with endless do-overs and delays. To continue that<br>
would not be playing nice. A little good-faith participation and<br>
transparency might go a long way in re-establishing some measure of trust<br>
here, but it needs to be on both sides. A good starting point might be to<br>
identify some points of common ground in order to build some measure of<br>
consensus. Silence breeds doubt, and one cannot be surprised when the one<br>
leads to the other.<br>
<br>
But, acknowledging transgression is also an important prerequisite to<br>
building trust. Sometimes the best way to save face is to abandon attempts<br>
to defend the indefensible.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do<br>
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>At 8:46 AM +0300 10/23/11, Alex Gakuru wrote:<br>
> p { margin-bottom: 2.12mm; }<br>
<div class="im">><br>
>I believe icann (certainly the gnso) is basically a political organisation<br>
>and I know that we all mean well towards best asserted public interest on<br>
>policy development - amidst ever unfolding political developments. May I<br>
>respectfully request for our best restraint awaiting the smooth resolution<br>
>of this matter. Scratching one another with friendly fire, at this point<br>
>in time, will only give the architects of non commercial voice collapse<br>
>more ammo to divide and conquer us.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Dan Krimm<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">><<mailto:<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com">dan@musicunbound.com</a>><a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com">dan@musicunbound.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>Avri,<br>
><br>
>I am sympathetic to your wish that people would simply "pull back from this<br>
>battle they are brewing" (i.e., just grow up, already) but I am not<br>
>particularly optimistic about it, for two reasons.<br>
><br>
> (1) Formal structures of institutional organization have the effect in<br>
>practice of reinforcing certain human tendencies while suppressing others.<br>
>It may well be that the NCSG constituency structure is "lighter" than other<br>
>alternatives, but simply being forced to use any constituency structure at<br>
>all intrinsically reinforces tribal behavior. If there are ways to improve<br>
>it, within the constraints mandated by staff/Board, let's do discuss them<br>
>and try to implement them. In practical terms, we need to deal with the<br>
>options before us. But we should acknowledge that the formal constituency<br>
>structure presents challenges that are not necessarily easily overcome, and<br>
>that run in the wrong direction if not actively counteracted in some way.<br>
><br>
> (2) It takes two to tango, and all it takes is one tribe to act like a<br>
>tribe to make it so -- other tribes cannot prevent it, and must respond to<br>
>the reality before them as given. In short, one tribe unilaterally can<br>
>veto growing up, and no one can stop them. In the case of NPOC leadership,<br>
>it seems to me they started out ultra-tribal from the get-go -- they did<br>
>not slip into it after joining up but rather were already there when they<br>
>first appeared.<br>
><br>
>Do you expect NPOC leadership to "mature" and stop fighting? If so, on<br>
>what empirical basis? Whatever benefit of doubt for trust there may have<br>
>been at this point has been seriously and indefinitely damaged by the<br>
>recent letter complaining about the election, at least from my own point of<br>
>view.<br>
><br>
>I agree that we *should* spend our energy trying to avoid going off the<br>
>rails, but without cooperation from all sides it will not happen. NPOC<br>
>leadership has a unilateral veto on that decision, and they appear to be<br>
>intent on exercising it, I assume because they calculate that going off the<br>
>rails is preferable to allowing NCSG to operate in a democratic manner. I<br>
>am open to evidence to the contrary, but until that evidence surfaces I<br>
>cannot be optimistic about it, myself. How do you propose to convince them<br>
>to "mature" here?<br>
><br>
>Dan<br>
><br>
><br>
>--<br>
>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do<br>
>not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>At 12:12 AM +0000 10/23/11, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
>>Hi,<br>
>><br>
>>We know we disagree on this point Milton. I must say I support the NCSG<br>
>>constituency model and think we should be using it to our, ie. NC/NP,<br>
>>advantage. As I have argued before, seats in nomcom and funding will be<br>
>>distributed along constituency lines, and I plan to do what I can to help<br>
>>a thousand constituencies bloom. Ok, maybe not a thousand, but the more<br>
>>the merrier. The more constituency seats we have in Nomcom, the better<br>
>>our chances at influencing the process of choosing ICANN directors. At<br>
>>one seat per constituency (something really needs to be done about the Biz<br>
>>constituency having 2!), the more NCSG constituencies the better. In one<br>
>>of our early slides set to the Board we advertised that we might get to 7,<br>
>>and I want to see that happen. I think the more constituencies we have,<br>
>>the less the chance of tribalism there will be.<br>
>><br>
>>I disagree that there is something innately tribalistic about<br>
>>constituencies, except in so far as people always gather in clan,<br>
>>families, tribes and cabals and get barbaric. It is human nature, and<br>
>>even in an open organization without constituency constraints people will<br>
>>do it. What is important is to behave otherwise. And whenever we find<br>
>>ourselves slipping into tribalism, to stop and pull back from it.<br>
>><br>
>>I am sure the constituency structure can be improved, but we still need to<br>
>>work our new kind of constituency and figure out what those improvements<br>
>>need to be, I think that the NCSG constituency type that does not parcel<br>
>>out the limited resource called g-council seats along constituency lines<br>
>>is already a good start in improving the constituency structure. Why<br>
>>don't we see if we can make it work?<br>
>><br>
>>I still think that although the NCSG constituencies are not as light as<br>
>>some of us hoped they would be, they are still lighter than the type of<br>
>>constituency they are stuck with in CSG. And maybe over time, as we<br>
>>mature in this organizational style and stop fighting each other, we will<br>
>>all find out how to use this structure to the greater good of the non<br>
>>commercial registrants and users. After all that is what we are here for,<br>
>>not just to entertain everyone else with our battles.<br>
>><br>
>>I am still hoping the leadership of both constituencies can pull back from<br>
>>this battle they are brewing. I still hope we can find a way to work<br>
>>together before we totally go off the rails.<br>
>><br>
>>We should really spend our energy getting our act together instead of<br>
>>fighting.<br>
>><br>
>>avri<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>On 22 Oct 2011, at 20:14, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Please let's not attack NPOC per se, because there are many good<br>
>>>organizations in NPOC. It's unfortunate that they were trapped in this<br>
>>>dysfunctional GNSO Constituency scheme and used as pawns by certain<br>
>>>people.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I agree with Avri that we don't need constituency-based tribalism. But<br>
>>>such tribalism is the whole purpose of GNSO SG constituencies, as forced<br>
>>>on us by the staff/Board. The people who insisted on the constituency<br>
>>>model know this - it allows a small group, such as the "NPOC leadership"<br>
>>>which really consists of three people, to count for as much as 150<br>
>>>others, and to pretend to be speaking for a larger group.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Well, I think we are beyond that being a possibility.<br>
>>>> I would prefer to see us find a way to get beyond the inter-constituency<br>
>>>> tribalism.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Often there is a gulf between the leaders of a group who are forced into<br>
>>>> hard positions to defend their tribe and the general good. I think we<br>
>>>> still have to find the way for the leaders to move toward the general<br>
>>>> good.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> avri<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 22 Oct 2011, at 11:56, Jorge Amodio wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> 5. Get rid of NPOC<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -J<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>