Question about NCUC faq relating to membership

[Alain Berranger]

Dear Dan,

Thank you!.. for a very interesting, long and detailed development... You
seem to have a deep understanding of the situation and context!...

Given the milllions of NGO/NFPs in the world, a few hundred or even
thousands members in ICANN would not be out of line. NCUC and NPOC can work
in this vast common space without crowding anybody.

NPOC membership development is based on inclusive but managed networking.
We do not attempt to recruit members we do not know from other networks and
they are always referred by current members. We will try to be educated,
informed and trained by the process and the engagement. Trying to walk the
talk, we have organized our first webinar on NGOs and gTLD on Dec 6th. We
will have an NPOC booth at eAsia in Dhaka, also in December. More to come...

Since you mentioned Amber - she will decide if and how to respond - but let
me say that she is our leader and totally involved in NPOC planning and
direction-setting.

Best, Alain

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> Alain,
>
> I think you are bumping up against the fundamental (and perhaps unsolvable)
> problem of representation: not everyone has the time/resources to
> participate meaningfully in policy deliberation, therefore some people who
> do have the time/resources (agents) need to be trusted to represent the
> interests of the full constituency (principals).
>
> This is formally known as the "Principal/Agent Problem" in economics and
> political theory.  I know of no sure-fire solution to it.  Every option has
> pitfalls.
>
> The stakeholder system in GNSO was (I presume) an attempt to try something
> different from the "traditional" representational systems in contemporary
> politics, where agents go rogue and do not serve the interests of the
> principals effectively.
>
> I guess there was also some precedent taken from the consensus-based
> deliberative model from IETF, though that does not ultimately solve the
> self-selection bias of participants even if most of them can come to
> consensus amongst themselves.
>
> You seem to be endeavoring to solve the problem of representation by moving
> toward direct democracy: i.e., having all principals participate directly
> in policy deliberations without an intermediate representative agent.
>
> But direct democracy has its pitfalls as well, because of what I mentioned
> at the top: not every constituent principal has the time/resources to
> participate in policy deliberations in a meaningful manner.
>
> Just as one example, the ballot initiative process in California (where I
> live) has been corrupted because most voters don't have the time to do the
> due diligence to understand exactly what they are voting on, or the real
> ramifications of what they are voting on, and thus at best they defer to
> "trusted sources" (often of a tribal nature) to make their voting decision
> for them and at worst they allow the manipulations of wealthy powers to
> influence their choices, sometimes less than entirely consciously
> (values-based advertising as opposed to policy-based advertising, push
> polling, etc.), not to mention the money it takes in practice to get an
> initiative on the ballot in the first place.  In short, this experiment in
> direct democracy in CA has become a vehicle for powerful narrow interests
> much more than it represents an informed choice amongst the voting
> electorate.
>
> From a pure political perspective, one might read the attempt to bulk up
> the numbers in NPOC as simply trying to build a larger voting bloc within
> NCSG, one that would nevertheless be highly influenced by a small (and
> therefore increasingly powerful) number of "tastemakers" leading NPOC, with
> an army of sheeplike followers playing the numbers game within the voting
> structure of the SG charter.
>
> Is quantity of membership the same as quality of participation?
>
> I would suggest not.  It doesn't necessarily improve the policy
> deliberations in terms of how representative they are for the full
> constituency in the wide world (i.e., the actual principals, as opposed to
> the agents that become members of the SG and constituency groups here at
> ICANN).
>
> If it seems that the only way for NCSG to compete with other constituencies
> within GNSO is by bulking up the numbers, then it seems as if you're
> extending this principle inward to NPOC *versus* other NCSG constituencies,
> which is not reassuring in the context of NCSG.
>
> Then again, I don't know if bulking up NCSG's membership numbers as a whole
> would *really* lead to greater influence within GNSO.  That may just be a
> ploy that is being foisted on NCSG in order to distract us with growing
> pains while policy is being decided along the way nevertheless.  Something
> to tame us and keep us busy and disorganized in order to dilute our impact
> on real policy discussions.  (Or is there some subtext that an NCSG
> dominated by NPOC would be more accepted inside GNSO than one where NCUC
> has the stronger voting voice?)
>
> For a policy-making process that is supposed to be based on consensus, I
> don't see any real diminution of infighting at this organization compared
> to others that operate on different principles.  And frankly, the more we
> bring in new members who have habits of infighting that they bring in from
> other institutional cultures, I think we can expect even more of it.
>
> Let's take a breather from this, shall we?
>
> Maybe we'd be better off trying to repair our own productive institutional
> culture first, and then to develop a sort of "institutional culture
> orientation" when we recruit new members, so they have a better sense of
> what is productive here and what is not.  If we are going to operate on the
> basis of consensus, then a lot of new members are going to need "consensus
> training" in order to participate productively and in good faith, because
> this is an alien concept to many, many policy-interested folks out in the
> wild world, especially those with substantial experience in the trenches of
> political and legal battlegrounds.  (I include myself as having contentious
> habits bred of long experience with contentious institutional contexts, and
> I'll say right now that when faced with what I see as bad-faith engagement,
> it is personally *very* difficult for me to avoid responding by "fighting
> back" -- and this is with full knowledge of the difference between the two
> modes of engagement.)
>
> I think we need to re-balance ourselves with better good-faith
> relationships (which of course must be reciprocal and actively ongoing --
> whatever happened to Amber? -- where is her good-faith engagement here? --
> I think she needs to show up personally, and soon) before we start trying
> to expand the membership exponentially.
>
> Trust first, expansion later.  Otherwise expansion seems problematic and
> may just exacerbate the trust issues which are still a little raw.  We've
> had enough expansion for the time being, I think.  Any additional expansion
> at this point seems doomed to diminishing returns, unless and until we
> first develop the institutional capacity to absorb them productively in
> cultural terms.
>
> Best,
> 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 12:23 PM -0500 11/13/11, Alain Berranger wrote:
> >Thanks Andrew,
> >
> >I understand and appreciate your clarifications - no surprise for me and I
> >generally agree with your stated views here.
> >
> >Indeed, we all have multiple "personalities" and I'm no exception! I also
> >understand the "expert" argument. I think experts should feed the dialogue
> >not necessarely always lead it...
> >
> >Regarding my statement of interest in this, and to be transparent, I'm in
> >the process of requesting NPOC membership for CECI -
> >see <http://www.ceci.ca/fr/>http://www.ceci.ca/fr/ - one of the oldest
> and
> >largest NGOs in Canada. I sit on the Board of CECI since early October.
> >
> >The issue I guess I'm struggling with is "who speaks for whom"? I do not
> >think individuals like myself or academics like yourself or IP lawyers for
> >that matter can speak for the global NGO/NFP community... no single
> >federations of NGO/NFPs like the Association for Progressive
> >Communications or the Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation and many
> >others can neither....Increasing the voice of NGO/NFPs in ICANN is very
> >important and if experts are to lead or feed their inter-stakeholders'
> >dialogue, it should be to inform the larger community on the practical
> >concerns regarding the internet and its consequences/impact on their daily
> >work.
> >
> >In relatively stable environments like Japan or Canada, just to name a
> >pair, NGO/NFP work is facilitated by a powerful and very accessible
> >internet. In environments like Ecuador and The Gambia, NGO/NFP work is a
> >life sustaining but also risky and even dangerous activity... I personally
> >strive to get thousands of NGO/NFP members into NPOC, because there can
> >only be real representation if there are sufficient numbers and democratic
> >representation. So I do not know who speaks for the NGO/NFP in ICANN
> >really until we have enough such organizations involved... a critical+
> >mass if you wish.... NCSG has maybe 100 to 120 institutional members right
> >now at best, probably much much less if we require a corporate decision to
> >join (NPOC does that by the way), and creating NPOC was a struggle to
> >begin with and the subject of much tension and mistrust, which still is a
> >wound that has not yet healed... Meanwhile, I think we can only be taken
> >seriously inside and outside ICANN and do meaningful work, if we have
> >hundred more if not thousands of NGO/NFP members... so arguing about this
> >NGO or this NFP being a "real non-commercial" seems counterproductive to
> >me!... You will surely agree with me that academics support evidence-based
> >decisions and the definition of an NGO/NFP is not rocket science
> neither...
> >
> >Yet, self-interest is core to human nature, can lead to great achievements
> >and drives most - I simply postulate that self-interest must take back
> >seat to the institutional/organizational vision and mission we work for,
> >inside and outside ICANN...
> >
> >Best, Alain
> >
> >On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Andrew A. Adams
> ><<mailto:aaa at meiji.ac.jp>aaa at meiji.ac.jp> wrote:
> >
> >Alain wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> In fact, there is a significantly different membership culture between
> NPOC=
> >>  and NCUC... because NPOC is only interested in NFP/NGO organizational
> memb=
> >> ers while NCUC mixes memberships from NFP/NGOs, academia (some could be
> for=
> >>  profit) and individuals (who may also have for profit motives or even
> be i=
> >
> >> nvolved in two organizations, one for profit and one not for profit).
> >
> >Alain,
> >
> >Please note that your statement here conflates individual academics and
> >universities. Yes, one could be an academic working for a forprofit
> >university an be a member of NCSG-NCUC. However, that would only be as an
> >individual. Even academics orking for for-profit institutions generally
> have
> >a non-profit interest in the domain name system. No aademic would be
> >permitted to represent a for-profit university within NCSG-NCUC membership
> >rules, only themselves.
> >
> >Yes, people have multiple identities and an academic with a non-commercial
> >interest in domain names could be an NCSG-NCUC member on that basis and
> also
> >perhaps represent (their own spin-off commercial company perhaps) a
> >commercial entity in another SG.
> >
> >The role of academics is to provide expert insight and (mostly)
> >non-self-interested analysis. Most academics do not claim or want to
> >represent their universities. Universities (the vast majority of which are
> >non-profit, whether private or public universities) would generally be
> better
> >represented in NCSG by computing staff rather than academics, usually,
> >although sometimes senior academics are also senior computing service
> >managers/directors (I know of two so there are probably quite a few more).
> >--
> >Professor Andrew A Adams
> > <mailto:aaa at meiji.ac.jp>aaa at meiji.ac.jp
> >Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> >Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> >Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
> ><http://www.a-cubed.info/>http://www.a-cubed.info/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> >Member, Board of Directors,
> >CECI, <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> http://www.ceci.ca
> >
> >Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> ><http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>www.schulich.yorku.ca
> >NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation,
> ><http://www.chasquinet.org>www.chasquinet.org
> >interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, <http://npoc.org/>http://npoc.org/
> >O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> >Skype: alain.berranger
>



--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111114/e9cdacdf/attachment-0001.html>