FW: Follow-Up to NCSG Charter-Structure Questions

[Kimberley Heitman]

Hi Milton, (& list)



This is a shrewd way of dealing with several representation tensions in the
NCSG system, which are arguably misplaced tensions when it's WGs that make
policy under the glare of ICANN processes. The NCSG can be generous in
proposing WG topics, without worrying whether there's internal
multi-stakeholder buy-in. It may be that other SGs prefer to propose WG
topics which toe a party line, but there's lots to be said for NCSG
promoting pluralism as an ICANN virtue.



As you point out, it's not unreasonable for the NCSG Council members to
undertake to vote favourably on a NCSG-sponsored working group proposal when
coming forward from the NCSG after meeting our 20% threshold. Once it's open
for comment, all NCSG members can make submissions as they choose, along
with the rest of the Net.



Regards,

Kim

-----------------------
Kimberley James Heitman
www.kheitman.com
-----------------------

  _____

From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2009 11:33 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Follow-Up to NCSG Charter-Structure Questions



Robin

I will try to have a draft that incorporates the reasonable staff comments
and some new ideas (thresholds for working group formation) that came out of
our discussions with ALAC/NARALO people by the middle of this week.  If we
could schedule a call sometime late evening EST this week I could squeeze it
into my schedule.



Let me explain this new idea. Brenden Kuerbis actually came up with it, and
it solves many problems related to minority representation under an
integrated structure. It should appeal to "dissenters" within NCUC such as
Cheryl Preston.



The idea is that when a certain threshold of the membership or the policy
committee wants to form a GNSO Working Group on a policy issue dear to them,
then ALL NCSG Council representatives must vote to support the formation of
that WG.



Example: A constituency or faction within the NCUC wants to promote policy
X. The first step is to get the GNSO Council to create a WG on X. Once a WG
is formed, any supporters of X can join that WG and work on the issue, it
doesn't matter whether they have a Council seat or not. So we have a vote in
the SG or the Policy Committee on whether to form the WG and if a certain
low threshold is met - say, 20% - then ALL of the NCSG Councillors are
obliged to vote for the formation of that WG, whether they like the idea or
not.



Of course, forming the WG does not mean that the supporters of X will get
exactly the policy they want. But NCSG cannot guarantee that in any event --
all the other factions, constituencies and SGs will be involved in any WG.
It does, however, guarantee that minorities within the NCSG have a chance to
get their ideas past the Council and into the WG phase.



Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>






  _____


From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:27 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: Follow-Up to NCSG Charter-Structure
Questions

Thanks, Milton.



You are right that we have to continue to remind the ICANN staff and board
that the constituency model that the staff is proposing encourages
stake-holder groups to be in a perpetual power struggle within themselves
(and between constituencies) to hold on to counsel seats.  The way staff is
trying to organize the GNSO it appears they are trying to disempower the
GNSO even further by requiring all energies to be consumed in un-ending
administrative tasks and political battles.   Too bad.  This "GNSO reform"
was a real opportunity for ICANN to reform some of its more nasty tendencies
(like staff dominating the board, the GNSO, etc.)



We should revise our draft SG proposal for submission by 1 March (taking
into account the feedback we've received so more).



Should we schedule a call this week to discuss the submission further?  Any
suggestions?



Thanks,

Robin







On Feb 21, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:





Hello, all

You will remember that I sent questions to the staff questioning the
practicality of certain aspects of their favored model for a NCSG. The good
news is that they have taken the inquiry seriously and responded. The bad
news is that, as I feared, the only way to make their favored model work
requires enormous amounts of organizational overhead - an additional
bureaucratic overlay that creates not only complexity but the possibility of
top-down manipulation of constituency election results. Interestingly, the
more workable approaches start to look a lot like the integrated election
process we already proposed. Read for yourself.



  _____


From: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org]

Milton:

Thank you for your recent email (below) in which you posed a couple of
questions for the Staff concerning the new Stakeholder Group model.  The
questions are challenging and we have done our best to provide what we think
are reasonable recommendations as to how they might be addressed.

Q1: How does a constituency-based model produced balanced geographic
representation in Council seats?

We envision geographic diversity as a representational responsibility of
each Stakeholder Group (SG) in fulfilling its role of allocating GNSO
Council seats to member Constituencies.  We are currently working with the
General Counsel to draft Bylaw amendments consistent with that approach.

Using your example, if the SG has six seats and three Constituencies, it may
choose to allocate seats evenly although it would not be required to do so.
In the simplest case, if there are two seats assigned to each Constituency,
the SG would alert its members that it needs to have all five geographic
regions represented with no more than two Councilors coming from the same
one.  In order to accomplish that goal, the SG might ask certain
Constituencies to produce its candidates from a limited set of geographic
regions.
Another option might be to solicit a larger candidate pool, e.g. three from
each Constituency or nine total (voted from within), and choose those six
that best satisfy the SG's geographic diversity needs.  In a situation where
the number of Council seats to be allocated is not evenly divisible, the SG
might decide to designate certain seats to specific geographic regions and
candidates from various Constituencies could campaign for those available
slots.

MM commentary: note the last line: "designating certain seats to specific
geographic regions" and allowing "candidates from various Constituencies
[to] campaign for those available slots" sounds suspiciously close to an
integrated, Stakeholder Group-wide election, which is what we proposed! In
other words, Council candidates would have to appeal for votes from across
the entire SG, not just inside their constituency

We believe that the SG, working collaboratively with its member
Constituencies, can continue to ensure that its GNSO Councilors reflect a
profile consistent with the organization's geographic diversity goals.

Q2: How does a constituency-based model apportion Council seats among
Constituencies when they are of different size?

While the decisions may be challenging, we think that one principal role of
the SG's leadership team[ 1] <see footnote below> is to establish the very
criteria (and methodology) that would allow such apportionment
determinations to be made.  A SG could utilize factors other than size, for
example, geographic diversity and possibly others.  To take a concrete
example, if there were six seats and four constituencies, the SG could end
up with a 2-2-1-1 or 3-1-1-1 configuration utilizing whatever
decision-making criteria it adopted (and had approved, via its Charter, by
the Board).  You raise the possibility of gaming the system and, of course,
such behavior is theoretically possible in any proposed model including your
own.  In that circumstance, the SG leadership should reexamine its
methodology and adjust, as necessary, to minimize any undesirable outcomes.
Once the seats are allocated, if a new constituency is subsequently admitted
to the SG by the Board, we recommend that, at its next annual cycle, the SG
reallocate seats taking into consideration five members vs. four.  The most
likely Council member configuration, given the limited combinations, would
be 2-1-1-1.  We do make the tacit assumption that any Constituency approved
by the Board would have satisfied ICANN's fundamental stakeholder
representational requirements and, thus, would be entitled to at least one
seat on the Council.

In terms of oversight, we believe that the Board's role will be not only to
ensure that each of the SG Charters is structured in a fair, open, and
transparent manner; but, it will also likely monitor SG activities,
especially in the period immediately after initial implementation.

We would be happy to continue discussing this matter with you and, of
course, we would welcome another set of questions if there are still
unresolved issues in your mind.

Regards,
Denise Michel

[1] <#_ftnref> We would envision an Execeutive Committee comprised of one
delegate from each recognized Constituency.

MM comment: This proposal creates a potential nightmare. It requires a group
of delegates from each constituency to fight among themselves, with no
pre-set criteria, to decide who gets how many Council seats. Unacceptable,
and unnecessary. In our proposal, size differences among constituencies are
automatically reflected in voting totals for Council seats. There is no need
for top-down, negotiated allocations. Those negotiations create all the
rigidities that the Board Governance Committee was trying to get rid of, and
present all kinds of opportunities for abuse. Even when they are not abused,
they will consume enormous amounts of time. It is apparent that ICANN's
professional staff - which gets paid to do this work - still does not
appreciate the way in which imposing additional layers of bureaucracy and a
constant need to contend and negotiation for power inside a SG saps the
energy of noncommercial groups and prevents them from doing the real work of
policy development. I ask for your support to tell the staff that this is
not an acceptable option.




MM's Original Email of 6 February, 2009:

Robert, Denise and Ken

Thanks a lot for your valuable feedback on our draft Charter (v4.0). It is
clear that we are making progress, although there is a long way to go.

In respect to some of your questions or requests for explanation, let me
turn the tables on you a bit. The presumption in many of these exchanges is
that there's something complicated or "different" about what we are
proposing, and that the "constituency-based SG model" is straightforward and
poses no problems. In many ways, however, an integrated SG structure is far
simpler, and we have no idea how a constituency model would work even if we
thought it desirable to implement it.

Let me give you two examples. I will pose them in the form of questions
because it genuinely would like to have answers from you or any other
defender of the constituency-based SG model.

Q1: How does a constituency-based model produced balanced geographic
representation in Council seats?

Think about this. Let's say there are 3 independent constituencies in a SG,
and each of them elects 2 Council seats without reference to the other. So
Constituency A elects (in accord with its own geog. representation rules) a
person from North American and a person from Latin America; Constituency B
elects a person from North America and a person from Latin America; and
Constituency C elects a person from North America and another from Latin
America. End result: each constituency has, on its own, produced as much
geographic diversity as it possibly could, and yet the end result could be
that only two world regions are represented on the Council.

I would be very interested to see how you propose to avoid this problem
while staying in the constituency model.

An integrated SG model, by contrast, can impose proportions on the six seats
as a whole, thereby ensuring that most if not all regions are represented.

Q2: How does a constituency-based model apportion Council seats among
Constituencies when they are of different size?

Let's suppose there is an "old constituency" that has 50 members, and a
"new" constituency that starts and gets recognized by the Board, and has
only 10 initial members (or even less). How many Council seats does each
constituency get? Do they inherently get the same number of seats simply by
virtue of the fact that they are constituencies? Or does their
representation on the Council reflect their relative size? If the latter,
who decides what allocation principle is used, when there is no
pre-established SG decision-making method? And once Council seats depend on
membership size, what is to stop one constituency from extending membership
in an overly easy way, regardless of appropriate criteria, to inflate its
relative size? Will the Board monitor this?

These questions are not impossible to answer, but they obviously impose a
very complex layer of organization, monitoring and procedure that an
integrated SG model does not have to worry about.
Frankly, Bob and Denise, I could produce about a dozen more questions like
this. But let's see how you do with these two first.

My point is to put this discussion of SG models on a more solid footing with
an equal burden of proof. If you can convince us that a constituency-based
model handles such basic and obvious issues as well as an integrated
model,we'd be more inclined to change our view.
--MM


  _____


[1] <#_ftnref> We would envision an Execeutive Committee comprised of one
delegate from each recognized Constituency.









IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090224/465b84c3/attachment.html>