[ncdnhc-discuss] Realism on Adcom procedure

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
> I feel the need to introduce some realism into the discussion
> of Adcom procedure. I note that this discussion has been
> sparked primarily by the complaints of one person.

     If others on this list do not want to have the changes I suggested,
then I can accept that.   My proposal is the open up the task force
membership, so its is not just a spoils of the ad com election.


> A few people believe that every decision that Adcom or our
> elected Names Council representatives make needs to be "put
> before the membership" on an asychronous mailing list, and
> that this is somehow more "democratic" or will result in better
> decisions.

     Milton is distorting what has been said.  No one is talking about
"every decision."  The membership of the task forces is a big deal.  This is
how policy is made.  Which is why Milton and other Adcom members end up on
the task forces.

> There are several problems with this.
>
> First, most members want the elected representative to do
> most of the work. That is why they elected them. They don't
> want to be involved in every little decision. In fact, they may
> get irritated and quit if we are forced to hold procedureless
> online straw polls every time we need to add someone to a Task
> Force on the NC.

     Milton is presenting the wrong choice, sort or an all or nothing
alternative.  I have asked, what is the obligation of the Ad Com to consult
with the membership?  And I have asked that the Adcom provide notice of
meetings and decisions, and allow people to participate in the task forces.
These are reasonable suggestions, and I believe members of the current Adcom
have been open to this, having only served on the ad com a few days, I
understand they will need so time to make things run smoothly.

>
> Second, asychronous communication in English on an email
> list, as I have consistently argued, is a horrible method of
> achieving consensus and is often procedurally unfair.
> Some people like Jamie Love constantly monitor this list
> and send out several messages daily (except of course
> for when he disappears for six months, but that's another
> story). Others check in once a week. Others just
> show up for votes. And there are all kinds of positions
> in between. Some are native english speakers, others
> are not. The idea that micromanagement can take place
> fairly and equally in such an environment is ridiculous.

    I believe we created an announce list for a reason, to provide a way for
the Ad Com to notifiy members of things where their particpation and advice
was a good thing.  I believe the announce list should be used to provide
notice of meetings, agenda, opportunites to provide input on this, etc.

    [snip]

> Trust is really what it is all about. I respectfully suggest that
> we trust our elected adcom members and suggest that they
> trust the membership and consult it when they need to.
> Along with trust goes monitoring and verification. Keep an
> eye on what they do, and if it seems wrong, then challenge
> it and/or next time don't vote for that person. But don't
> make suspicion and contentiousness a routine.

     Milton's complaints about reasonable requests for more consultation
echo Lynn's complaints about the obligations for ICANN to have bottom up
input.

       But I am happy to put this whole thing to a simple test.  I ask the
Ad Com to formally ask the membership if they agree with my proposals that
task force membership be done differently ---- that the membership be
formally notified of openings, that people be permitted to volunteer, and
that the membership on these task forces  be more inclusive of the
membership of this consistency.   If Milton is right, and people do not want
the opportunity to have more input on the TF membership, then we can return
to the earlier practice.

   Jamie