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:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> 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:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>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