On Playing Nice

[Cheryl Preston]

If you have been on this list for a while, you might enjoy the following comments of Mike O'Connor (I don't know who he is) posted last week as a public comment on the ICANN page, http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-users/msg00009.html.


"ICANN is a bewildering group to join and not very welcoming for the newcomer. A new person who's attending their first ICANN meeting is likely to be very lonely and probably won't find it easy to link up with a cohort group of new-entrants (or experienced ICANN mentors) who are able or willing to provide encouragement. As a person attends subsequent meetings, they're likely to discover that we are a very clubby group and that it's hard to break into the inner circle. . . .

"We're an angry, political, confrontational group too. It's part of our history, and a habit that we've never broken. Most of the people sitting around the GNSO and ICANN tables have been rassling with each other since The Very Beginning. That makes us quite off-putting to normal human beings who are much more likely to stick around if they find fun, learning and fellowship rather than anger, intrigue, and punishment. One approach may be to start consciously offering positive rewards for helpful contributions, rather than our current well-developed system of punishments for mistakes. Again, the new working-group process may provide opportunities for improvement."

I appologize for contributing to the "attitude" on this list.  I appologize to anyone whom I have offended.  I really do not have any personal issues with or concerns about the good faith of any NCUC member.  I am sorry that, in our bickering over our substantive disagreements, we have forgotten to always be polite and kind.  

I would like to refocus the discussion to the charter provisions.  In any event, the NCUC proposal will no doubt need further refinements in response to staff and board comments.  I suppose we do not need to debate charter terms until that feedback is returned; but it may be productive in the meantime to consider some of these issues before the board does.   

Please let me start over and reword my questions:

Question 1:
Should we build into the NCSG Charter structures to encourage a braoder involvement of more people and organizations?  I assume we all agree this is a good thing.

Would this objective be better met with a NCSG structure that accounts for minority viewpoints, difusses power, and includes systems for accountability available to everyone on every side of various issues?  Those with adamant views on the vlaue of free expression might also prefer a structure that prevents a mere majority of voting participants adamant about content limitations from controlling all 6 GNSO Council Representative and the Chair (who has all discretion on membership and funding).  We know that not all non-commercial Internet users have a "cohesive" view on many issues in Internet regulation.  Would having safeguards against capture by any one group or view hurt the long term credibility of NCSG?  

Question 2:
Should the NCSG discuss, fairly consider, and reflect a range of interests of users even when those interests involve some safety protections and may be interpreted as inconsistent with strict free expression, anonymity, and deregulation, and even if that means the NCSG will not always have a solidified cohesive position on free expression or another issue?  This is of course a harder question.  I see fewer incentives to engage in dialogue if a mere numerical majority of 1 controls all power-excercising positions and all of the NCSG voting strength on the GNSO council.  

Question 3:
If we are interested in possibilities for a structure to encourage broader participation and real representation of broader interests, how best to accomplish that?  Is cummulative voting enough?  Is balance between a majority-elected chair and at least one constituency constituted body enough?  Should sources of funding and allocation of finances be dislosed to all members?  Should the Chair have sole power to appoint or select the NCSG representatives on the Nominating Committee and other liaisons?  Should there be wider disclosure and input before giving an organization 4 votes based on the involvement of a single representative?  And so forth.

If someone wants to discuss any of the suggestions and additions in the Alternative Charter, please let me know.  Other than that, I am moving on to a statement on the public decency limitations on gTLD names.




Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
424 JRCB
Provo, UT  84602
(801) 422-2312
prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu