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

[Alex Gakuru]

True! I can reveal that our diplomats on the ground are working round the
clock to  resolve this issue amicably. Now preparing to tune into 'gnso
online' for a live feed of their deliberations;) appreciated.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111023/f830f73c/attachment-0001.html>