Question about NCSG

[Dan Krimm]

Just a question in return:

What are the dangers of establishing a "permanent stopgap" in this case?
Would it be more effective in the long run to refuse to participate unless
certain threshold conditions are met, or would that simply push the group
off its own cliff?

I'm not close enough to the situation to judge this, but the
permanent-stopgap potential is a worry I would have as a basic reflex,
without further info.  This is a "fundamental law" of organizational
dynamics.  Once you set a precedent, it is increasingly established as
status quo over time, unless quickly changed.  If I were doing this, I
would put a hard sunset deadline on the cooperation/participation period
(and make it crystal clear to all at ICANN), unless significant change is
accomplished by then.

And I would not budge the deadline.  One chance.  If you budge once, you
can budge indefinitely.  The original time period should be realistic, of
course, but I would recommend making it a one-time thing.  If opponents
can use the time period to delay action, then they can continue to delay
moving forward, and then the stopgap becomes the status quo.

This is how slippery slopes work in real life.  And it seems the entire
history of ICANN is one huge slippery slope, even if in slow motion.

If the best alternative to consensus seems better to some participants
than any consensus, then consensus will be permanently out of reach.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



On Thu, August 13, 2009 11:36 am, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I understand that the NCUC wants to ask for reconsideration of the
> charter, and I don't disagree, though I also do not hold out much hope
> for a favorable resolution at this time - as far as I can tell they
> are circling the wagons and making sure that none of the Board members
> waver in the light of outside pressure.
>
> What I am curious about is what do we want to do about forming the
> NCSG.  There is an approved charter and it could be used even while
> asking for reconsideration - we can be explicit about following
> through with the less then acceptable charter until such time as it is
> replaced by a proper charter is a matter of expediency and does not
> reflect any acceptance of the SG for that charter.
>
> What I am worried about is that we would add self-injury to those
> injuries already being inflicted by the powers that be,.  I.e. in
> addition to being denied the 3 seats that should belong to the NCSG
> but currently are being controlled by the Board and Staff, we would
> also be down one seat in that Carlos' terms ends and a replacement
> needs to be chosen at the SG level.
>
> Just asking.
>
> a.
>