candidates for review teams.

[Dan Krimm]

Quick question:

If "recommendation" is something less than "policy-making" then does this
necessarily get returned to the "policy makers" for another round of
"policy-making" that led to the result being reviewed?  What is the context
of institutional flow here?

So, it seems the practical dynamics of this review process would be to
block anything that doesn't adhere to some standard of consensus (and who
defines that standard?), and return it (with comments) for additional
action.  Or are you saying the RT wouldn't even have a real veto power
either?  Then, what is its *practical* purpose in the institutional flow?
Its recommendations could easily be ignored if it has no authority to
actually do anything about the policy.

Does some other body have authority to act on the RT's recommendations?
(If so, then that other body is what holds the power, and to the extent
that the other body relies upon the RT's recommendations, it could give the
RT authority by proxy.  If the other body is *formally* required to accept
its recommendations, then the RT does have real policy-making authority in
the institutional structure.)

It seems to me the frame in which to evaluate all of this is
"decision-making power."  Who has such power in this institutional
structure, and what exactly do they have power over?

That's really the bottom line, amidst all of this hopeful focus on
consensus-building.  Consensus is fine and dandy when it can be genuinely
achieved in a way that all can accede to.  When genuine consensus remains
out of reach, however, then push comes to shove and decision-making power
rules the day (or else structural gridlock, which may favor some parties
over others, in an ongoing dispute).

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.



At 1:45 PM -0400 7/11/10, Kim G. von Arx wrote:
>Hi Milton:
>
>I forgot to respond to your last question in the email, i.e., with respect
>the setting of policy by the RT.  I believe a "review" should only be
>that, i.e, a review and nothing more and nothing less.  This should
>include a multi-discplinary and interest group approach and should include
>a comparative view with other approaches around the world.  It further
>should include recommendations for improvements which, again, should only
>be that - recommendations.
>
>Kim
>
>
>
>
>On 11 Jul 2010, at 13:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> Kim,
>> Thanks for your detailed answer. Let me add some comments below.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> I would be excited to take on the responsibilities to review, advise on,
>>> and assist in the implementation of a WHOIS policy that is mutually
>>> acceptable to all stakeholders of ICANN.  I am certainly aware that the
>>> views diverge widely, but I am confident that the review team, as a
>>> cohesive group, can reach a consensus that will appease all groups to a
>>> large extent.
>>
>> This is one of the interesting - and scary - things about the whole
>>"review team" concept. As I have said in my analysis of the AoC, it
>>reproduces the politics of ICANN and almost invites the review team to
>>re-make whatever policy it is they are reviewing. Can you give me a
>>better idea of what it is the RT actually is reviewing? And what effect
>>its reviews might have? It is always been a bit odd that the U.S.
>>government singled out Whois for a special review team.
>>
>>> Of course, no solution will be able to cater to
>>> everyone's needs and that, I would submit, is not the goal, but to find
>>> an equitable balance among the various views, needs, and desires.
>>
>> Here it sounds as if you think the RT will be making policy. I think we
>>need a better understanding of what the purpose of this RT is.
>>
>> --MM