constituency politics was Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Agenda points ...

[Dan Krimm]

Avri,

I am sympathetic to your wish that people would simply "pull back from this
battle they are brewing" (i.e., just grow up, already) but I am not
particularly optimistic about it, for two reasons.

 (1) Formal structures of institutional organization have the effect in
practice of reinforcing certain human tendencies while suppressing others.
It may well be that the NCSG constituency structure is "lighter" than other
alternatives, but simply being forced to use any constituency structure at
all intrinsically reinforces tribal behavior.  If there are ways to improve
it, within the constraints mandated by staff/Board, let's do discuss them
and try to implement them.  In practical terms, we need to deal with the
options before us.  But we should acknowledge that the formal constituency
structure presents challenges that are not necessarily easily overcome, and
that run in the wrong direction if not actively counteracted in some way.

 (2) It takes two to tango, and all it takes is one tribe to act like a
tribe to make it so -- other tribes cannot prevent it, and must respond to
the reality before them as given.  In short, one tribe unilaterally can
veto growing up, and no one can stop them.  In the case of NPOC leadership,
it seems to me they started out ultra-tribal from the get-go -- they did
not slip into it after joining up but rather were already there when they
first appeared.

Do you expect NPOC leadership to "mature" and stop fighting?  If so, on
what empirical basis?  Whatever benefit of doubt for trust there may have
been at this point has been seriously and indefinitely damaged by the
recent letter complaining about the election, at least from my own point of
view.

I agree that we *should* spend our energy trying to avoid going off the
rails, but without cooperation from all sides it will not happen.  NPOC
leadership has a unilateral veto on that decision, and they appear to be
intent on exercising it, I assume because they calculate that going off the
rails is preferable to allowing NCSG to operate in a democratic manner.  I
am open to evidence to the contrary, but until that evidence surfaces I
cannot be optimistic about it, myself.  How do you propose to convince them
to "mature" here?

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 12:12 AM +0000 10/23/11, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We know we disagree on this point Milton. I must say I support the NCSG
>constituency model and think we should be using it to our, ie. NC/NP,
>advantage. 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.  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 constituencies we have,
>the less the chance of tribalism there will be.
>
>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.
>
>I am sure the constituency structure can be improved, but we still need to
>work our new kind of constituency and figure out what those improvements
>need to be, I think that the NCSG constituency type that does not parcel
>out the limited resource called g-council seats along constituency lines
>is already a good start in improving the constituency structure.  Why
>don't we see if we can make it work?
>
>I still think that although the NCSG constituencies are not as light as
>some of us hoped they would be, they are still lighter than the type of
>constituency they are stuck with in CSG.  And maybe over time, as we
>mature in this organizational style and stop fighting each other, we will
>all find out how to use this structure to the greater good of the non
>commercial registrants and users.  After all that is what we are here for,
>not just to entertain everyone else with our battles.
>
>I am still hoping the leadership of both constituencies can pull back from
>this battle they are brewing.  I still hope we can find a way to work
>together before we totally go off the rails.
>
>We should really spend our energy getting our act together instead of
>fighting.
>
>avri
>
>
>On 22 Oct 2011, at 20:14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> Please let's not attack NPOC per se, because there are many good
>>organizations in NPOC. It's unfortunate that they were trapped in this
>>dysfunctional GNSO Constituency scheme and used as pawns by certain
>>people.
>>
>> I agree with Avri that we don't need constituency-based tribalism. But
>>such tribalism is the whole purpose of GNSO SG constituencies, as forced
>>on us by the staff/Board. The people who insisted on the constituency
>>model know this - it allows a small group, such as the "NPOC leadership"
>>which really consists of three people, to count for as much as 150
>>others, and to pretend to be speaking for a larger group.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> Well, I think we are beyond that being a possibility.
>>> I would prefer to see us find a way to get beyond the inter-constituency
>>> tribalism.
>>>
>>> Often there is a gulf between the leaders of a group who are forced into
>>> hard positions to defend their tribe and the general good.  I think we
>>> still have to find the way for the leaders to move toward the general
>>> good.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 22 Oct 2011, at 11:56, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>
>>>> 5. Get rid of NPOC
>>>>
>>>> -J