using the list

[Dan Krimm]

This makes a lot of sense.  Nevertheless, I wonder if it would be a useful
custom for people to identify which constituencies they are affiliated
with, when they comment on-list.

Would this tend to tribalize us in unproductive ways, or would it make more
transparent the context in which our comments are made?  Presumably
constituency affiliation is not a secret, but if there is significant extra
effort entailed to discover this information it may tend to be generally
less visible (economists call this "transaction cost"), especially for
participants who are more sporadic in their participation.

There is some sense in which we strive here to let words speak on their own
merits, but in the real-life human-political world there is a lot of
rhetoric floating around that masquerades as something other than what its
real intent is.  My feeling is that tribal affiliation would not undermine
words offered in good faith (unless tribalism might close the minds of some
readers before they can absorb the words of a different tribe on the
merits), but might help inoculate against misleading statements intended to
manipulate rather than enlighten.

We've already experienced the beginnings of contextual mistrust inherent in
the formation of new formal constituencies, in this stakeholder group.  In
an ideal world, we would have been successful in pushing back against this
formalization of internal tribalism.  But now that this tribalism has been
formally established as the structure we are mandated to exist within, I
think it is probably better to acknowledge it full-on rather than try to
operate as if it was not there.

NCSG is now an umbrella group for a set of sub-groups that may from time to
time have divergent views and interests, even though there is presumably
some reason to think that our interests will tend to diverge less among our
sub-groups than between our and other stakeholder groups.  If we try to
operate as if we were still "one big happy family" the divergent interests
will still exist but tend to operate under the radar, and that's probably
bad for our collective discourse (though perhaps might serve the interest
of a particular tribe, at the expense of other tribes).

We should continue to seek consensus wherever possible, and it's always
better to discuss things in good faith, but I think we should do so with
full awareness of structural differences that may persist among the tribes.
I think this might minimize the potential for bad faith arguments to be
sustained without detection.  The fact is, we have already been tribalized
by mandated organizational structure and nothing we do to reach for
non-tribal discussion can change that reality, which will inevitably drive
the motivations informing our discussions.  So, given that axiom, I think
transparency is the way to proceed.

In fact, the silver lining of forced/formal tribalism is that it tends to
expose the informal tribalism that may have existed beforehand, anyway.

Dan, NCUC


--
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 9:12 PM +0100 7/23/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>I would like to encourage all constituencies and their chairs to use this
>list for policy discussions and to direct their members to do so. This is
>not only an issue of good faith, but it is vital for the promotion of
>transparent and democratic decision-making. Non-commercial voice in ICANN
>has evolved through its diverse and open dialogue and I hope that this
>continues to take place in this new list.
>
>KK
>
>
>--
>Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>Senior Lecturer in Law,
>Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law,
>Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses,
>ICANN NCUC Chair
>University of Strathclyde,
>Graham Hills Bld.
>50 George Street,
>Glasgow, G1 1BA,
>UK
>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk