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

[Dan Krimm]

Okay, okay.  I thought it was pertinent to express just how far NPOC
leadership had crossed the line here, and what that appears to say about
their fundamental motives.  But right now it's up to the Board to decide
how to respond about the election.  Assuming the Board doesn't allow the
election to be questioned (and acts promptly to communicate that decision),
we can give everyone another chance to play nice.

One hopes this exhausts appeals to higher authorities and efforts to
re-shape precedent with endless do-overs and delays.  To continue that
would not be playing nice.  A little good-faith participation and
transparency might go a long way in re-establishing some measure of trust
here, but it needs to be on both sides.  A good starting point might be to
identify some points of common ground in order to build some measure of
consensus.  Silence breeds doubt, and one cannot be surprised when the one
leads to the other.

But, acknowledging transgression is also an important prerequisite to
building trust.  Sometimes the best way to save face is to abandon attempts
to defend the indefensible.

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 8:46 AM +0300 10/23/11, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>				p { margin-bottom: 2.12mm; }
>
>I believe icann (certainly the gnso) is basically a political organisation
>and I know that we all mean well towards best asserted public interest on
>policy development - amidst ever unfolding political developments. May I
>respectfully request for our best restraint awaiting the smooth resolution
>of this matter. Scratching one another with friendly fire, at this point
>in time, will only give the architects of non commercial voice collapse
>more ammo to divide and conquer us.
>
>
>
>On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Dan Krimm
><<mailto:dan at musicunbound.com>dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
>
>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