constituency politics

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> We know we disagree on this point Milton.  

[Milton L Mueller] yes, indeed we do. 

> As I have argued before, seats in nomcom and funding will be
> distributed along constituency lines, and I plan to do what I can to
> help a thousand constituencies bloom.  Ok, maybe not a thousand, but the
> more the merrier.

[Milton L Mueller] You say this despite the fact that all the experience and evidence we have indicate that constituency structures create resource and power competition? More constituencies does not mean more participation, better representation or better policies. It just means more overlapping structures and communication barriers to stumble over, more fiefdoms seeking to gain or preserve special status, etc.

>  The more constituency seats we have in Nomcom, the
> better our chances at influencing the process of choosing ICANN
> directors.  At one seat per constituency (something really needs to be
> done about the Biz constituency having 2!), the more NCSG constituencies
> the better.  In one of our early slides set to the Board we advertised
> that we might get to 7, and I want to see that happen.  I think the more

[Milton L Mueller] I think you forgot the point of that slide. Remember the distinction between "constituencies" with a small c and Constituencies with a large C? We were showing that if you hard-wired Council seats to Constituencies, it would break down because the number of Constituencies might exceed the number of Council seats. Originally, we were not talking about a "Constituency" in the current sense, we were proposing what we called an "interest group" (small-c constituency) as defined by our original charter proposal. Yes, there could be 7 or even 17 interest groups as we conceived them back then. But those were not structural features of the SG, they were temporary and very flexible groupings of NCSG members focused on a specific concern or interest, and one could  be a member of 4 or 5 of them. If that is what you want, then we don't disagree much. 

Constituencies, on the other hand, are organizational structures that still create resource competition, communication barriers and little power structures within the SG. 

You are right, we fought hard and won a SG model that did not create the old-line constituency, but remember that the people who proposed or are proposing new constituencies still have the old model in mind. 

> the more constituencies we have, the less the chance of tribalism there will be.

[Milton L Mueller] Wrong I fear. If indeed we had seven Constituencies there would still be tribalism (actually factionalism would be a much more accurate term). In fact it would be worsened. there would be complete disintegration of the SG as an SG. No one could possibly keep up with all the fragmented discussions and communications and all the little cliques running their own show. Each clique would try to develop its own special connections to the power structures (Board, Council, GAC). 

> I disagree that there is something innately tribalistic about
> constituencies, except in so far as people always gather in clan,
> families, tribes and cabals and get barbaric.  It is human nature, and
> even in an open organization without constituency constraints people
> will do it.  What is important is to behave otherwise.  And whenever we
> find ourselves slipping into tribalism, to stop and pull back from it.

[Milton L Mueller] Again, the problem is not tribalism it is factionalism. By that I mean that the differences are usually based on one of two things, sometimes both: policy differences and personalities.