Just a few thoughts from an individual/non-organizational NCUC/NCSG member.

The conundrum Nicolas describes below has a formal name in political
theory: the "principal/agent problem" which is a fundamental danger of
*any* system of representation: in essence the representative (the agent)
has an incentive to go rogue, unless there is sufficient transparency and
other controls to ensure a robust degree of accountability (to the
constituency being represented, i.e., the principal(s)).

The simple fact is that even the "multi-stakeholder" model is not at all
immune to this fundamental pitfall.  I've personally been somewhat
skeptical of the stakeholder model at ICANN (adapted from the one at IETF)
from the get-go, and this is one reason why.  There are no obvious *formal*
structures of accountability in place, any way you look at it, given that
members are a subset of the constituencies defined by their characteristics
(many or most of whom are not signed up as members), and that in some sense
those that take the trouble to participate are *implicitly* representing
those who don't or can't, in the absence of *formal* representation.  (And
now, Amber and Debbie are proposing to introduce a more formal type of
representation into the mix, but it seems that it has no structure of
accountability controls any more than the purely implicit form.)

As an individual 2LD registrant, there seems to be no possible process for
collective representation of individual registrants (or, perhaps I should
have, say, 40 votes to cover all of those, given the large number of
individual registrants in the wild world compared to the relatively small
number of us in the NCSG membership -- does anyone have numbers on that?).

But, I'm not serious about this -- it's absurd.  There's no formal process
for developing any sort of consensus among *all* individual registrants,
unless we were to form ourselves into a formal collective, in which case
perhaps we could have a representative with 4 votes like the others (but
that's not going to happen, realistically).  I see no way to plug this
hole, and thus it becomes a serious and enduring flaw in the design of the
stakeholder model.

At the very least, though I would think that any orgs that Amber and Debbie
sign up to NPOC should at least be required to confirm explicitly and
independently to ICANN (i.e., to NCSG) that they are granting A&D this
representative role.  We shouldn't have to take it on A&D's word, just as
no one should take my word if I attempt to sign up a bunch of other
individual registrants as members.

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 11:19 PM -0400 10/19/11, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>I agree that the situation is more complex than I've let it shown. You've
>convinced me that this may be legitimate or valuable to look at. And I
>apologize to all for implying as a matter of fact something that could be
>contested.
>
>On the merit:
>
>I'm not sure having representation adds something meaningful that is not
>immediately counterbalanced by an equal loss. Just raising the issue I
>juggle with the most for the sake of progressing on the merit:
>
>It might bring more political participants but it does so at the price,
>precisely, of their political involvement. That, I think, is problematic.
>
>I know that analogies are tricky creatures, so I don't use this next one
>to close a point; I bring it only for us to use, if it is useful.
>
>The analogy is most real-lived political/electoral systems. We don't
>mandate people to express our political rights in elections. We might do
>it to lobby our interest. Or to negotiate. We do it to discuss business.
>We don't do it to express our views on income taxes. Nor on war. Although
>we might do it, again, to lobby. We, of course, as a result of elections,
>use representatives. But it might not be most appropriate to use it
>beforehand. Although we have parties, they are not representatives...
>
>Since one of the most important task of NCSG's membership is to express
>itself in votes, I'm not sure it is great to enable representation at that
>level, even if it is true that it helps solve some information and
>resource asymmetry problems.
>
>
>##############
>
>In the spirit of thinking this over, here is a list of points-issues, the
>settling of the details of which could be part of a balance framework for
>enabling resource pooling with regard representation. This is mostly based
>on the issues you raise. Addition, substraction, commentaries and ideas
>are welcome. Discussion on the merit of this might precede engagement with
>these points, or it might proceed along with it.
>
>
>-- The limit to the number of votes one representative could have.
>
>-- The class of party that could delegate/mandate an external representative
>
>-- The obligation(s) that such a mandatary (or agent? or representative?)
>should have towards its mandators (or principal? or represented?).
>
>-- The monetary treatment acceptable
>
>-- Safeguards to insure that the represented has and retains an interest;
>is and remains eligible
>
>Nicolas
>
>
>On 10/19/2011 5:39 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>
>>Let's not be too hasty (or too light-hearted).
>>
>>Despite its pseudo-anonymous origin and inappropriate distribution, the
>>letter does raise legitimate concerns that deserve a fair hearing. 
>>
>>As an individual, I can see the attractiveness of pooling resources for
>>certain kinds of representation.  I can't afford (in dollars or time) to
>>go flying all over the globe to meetings.  I expect other individuals and
>>small organizations are similarly situated.  Especially ones where the
>>issues are complex and require an appreciation of history and technology
>>that require years of study to command.  And while the outcome may be
>>critical to an organization's ability to fulfill its mission, the cost of
>>direct participation may well be prohibitive.  So it certainly seems fair
>>to raise the issue of whether obtaining (and/or paying for) a third-party
>>expert to represent an organization (or individual, or group of
>>individuals) is reasonable.  And if so, what rules apply to such
>>representatives and the organizations that sponsor them.   
>>
>>For example: Consider an organization that pays, say, 100 unrelated
>>parties with minimal interest in DNS to apply for membership and name the
>>organization's rep as their own.  Although this rep may in fact end up
>>protecting the interests of these parties, it seems clear that the
>>organization is buying additional votes from parties that would not
>>participate of their own accord.  This seems bad - and is what Avri
>>reported in her response as a concern that shared representation could be
>>used to "game" the system.
>>
>>Is it in fact bad?  I don't like the idea of "bought"  votes; it smells
>>of corruption.  But suppose there's no payment.  Is this then simply
>>recruiting additional members and providing a mechanism for cost-shared
>>(or free) representation?  Don't we want a broad membership?  If the
>>selected representative does in fact represent the interests of each
>>party, and in cases of conflict or ambiguity takes direction from those
>>parties, doesn't everyone benefit?
>>
>>If a representative breaches his duty to an organization by acting
>>against its interests, how is that our concern?  It clearly is a matter
>>between the representative and her sponsor - and in the case of an
>>attorney, various ethics laws apply.  But do we want to (do we even have
>>the expertise to) police the relationship between a representative and
>>his sponsor/employer?  I don't.
>>
>>On the other hand, the part of our current membership that participates
>>in discussions (and elections) seems to expect the same level of passion
>>and commitment from all other members.  And, I suspect, would thus expect
>>all representatives to be direct employees (or principals) of the
>>organization that they represent.  And fully informed and expert on all
>>the issues.  As an individual member, I'm already outvoted by any medium
>>or large organization that merely by being a member has more votes than I
>>do.  I certainly worry about being further marginalized by some evil
>>organization that mobilizes hundreds (or thousands) of zombie votes...
>>But the expectation that all members bring the same passion, commitment
>>and resources to their participation is unrealistic. And sham/zombie
>>members that are brought in only to multiply the votes of some member
>>would be an unacceptable corruption of the process.  One has to have some
>>genuine interest/stake in the organization to be a member.
>>
>>So there's probably some need for guidance about the expectations we have
>>of members' participation; how to distinguish legitimate cooperation and
>>resource pooling from attempts to gain unfair advantage such as zombie
>>voting.  This note is intended to stimulate thought and discussion - it
>>doesn't cover all the subsidiary issues and considerations that I can
>>think of.  But a reasonable balance should be possible.
>>
>>It seems to me a good thing that NPOC's interaction with the NCSG-EC has
>>identified this issue.  I don't know what the "right" answer is.  But
>>instead of fighting over process and raising questions about actors'
>>motivations and character, it would be much more productive to focus on
>>and discuss the issue.  If a set of guidelines/rules can be formulated,
>>the EC can put them in place, or call a membership vote.
>>
>>While I think that should be done promptly, my position is that the
>>election was conducted properly and that the results should be certified
>>as final.  If after giving them a chance, any part of the membership
>>finds that the current (newly elected) leadership does not act correctly,
>>we have an appeals process for extreme cases - and there will be more
>>elections as the initial terms expire. 
>>
>>Let's figure out how to solve problems as one non-commercial
>>constituency - not devolve into the ugly, destructive internecine
>>political machinations that many on this list deplore in others...
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>This communication may not represent my employer's views,
>>if any, on the matters discussed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: NCSG-Discuss
>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>On Behalf Of Nicolas Adam
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 14:41
>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results
>>
>>And to add to all your concerns (and on a lighter note),
>>
>>please note that if "NPOC leadership" is successful in getting the right
>>for the same external (legal) representative to represent many
>>member-orgs in NCSG, the balance of power would fall squarely into *my*
>>hands:
>>
>>Debbie's 24 votes + Amber's 44 votes + the 32 already sympathizing,
>>gives ME the balance of power.
>>
>>Food for thought ;)
>>
>>"What are we going to do tomorrow night?
>> The same thing we do every night, we try to take over the world!"
>>
>>
>>Nicolas,
>>
>>PS. I believe I could find many, many persons willing to have me
>>represent them in NCSG. AND they would answer their emails and confirm
>>that I am still their chosen representative at random intervals and at a
>>moment's notice without flinching. You can see that this is past
>>ridiculous and going nowhere fast.  ....
>>
>>On 19/10/2011 2:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>>Timothe
>>>To add to your concerns, if you check what is supposed to be the NPOC
>>>mailing list, you find that this letter has not been discussed, or even
>>>posted on their membership list.
>>><http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/>http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>On Behalf
>>>>Of Timothe Litt
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:34 AM
>>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for providing the results, and for all your efforts in
>>>>organizing the
>>>>election.
>>>>
>>>>I'm certainly disappointed to see the NPOC appeal - and having reviewed the
>>>>posted material, am particularly disappointed to see it signed only "NPOC
>>>>Leadership".  I suppose we can assume that
>>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>"[log in to unmask]"
>>>>implies one of the organizations... but it seems rather unprofessional that
>>>>"NPOC leadership" didn't sign their names and organizations, nor
>>>>provide any
>>>>data as to how many of the NPOC members (or candidate members) support
>>>>these
>>>>objections, nor copy their correspondence to this list.  I thought that
>>>>both
>>>>transparency and free expression were key values of this group.
>>>>
>>>>While I certainly expect differences of opinion on some policy matters, the
>>>>entire non-commercial community is a disadvantaged minority in the ICANN
>>>>world with many common issues and concerns that differ from those of the
>>>>commercial (and better funded) majorities.  Fighting among ourselves and
>>>>asking external parties to intervene on one side or another only makes us
>>>>appear weaker and less relevant.  As Ben Franklin said in 1776, "We
>>>>must all
>>>>hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
>>>>
>>>>I hope that NPOC leadership (whoever it is) and our new leadership will be
>>>>able to establish a relationship of mutual respect and trust that enables
>>>>the community to advance a common agenda where possible, and where it is
>>>>not, to differ non-destructively.
>>>>
>>>>With respect to the issues raised in the appeal:  since NPOC and the EC are
>>>>at odds, they should be discussed here (and if necessary in a real-time
>>>>webmeeting or teleconference).  If this does not resolve the issues and
>>>>there is sufficient support, the 'appeal to the membership' provisions of
>>>>the charter can be invoked.  But I'm naïve enough to believe that
>>>>reasonable
>>>>people of good will can sort this out without such a heavyweight process.
>>>>
>>>>Certainly a circular firing squad will only benefit other interests...
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>This communication may not represent my employer's views,
>>>>if any, on the matters discussed.
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>On Behalf
>>>>Of Avri
>>>>Doria
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 06:43
>>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Provisional election Results
>>>>
>>>>To the membership:
>>>>
>>>>[...Snip...]
>>>>
>>>>I must note, that despite having participated in the nomination process,
>>>>having submitted statements of candidacy and been listed on the ballot
>>>>without prior notice or complaint, the NPOC leadership has filed a
>>>>complaint
>>>>with the ICANN Board and requested that the vote be suspended and new
>>>>elections called.
>>>>The letter to the Board by the NPOC leadership can be found at:
>>>><http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html><http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html>
>>>>while my response to this complaint can be found at:
>>>><http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html><http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html>
>>>>
>>>>It is my expectation, and hope, that the ICANN Board will choose not to
>>>>interfere in this election.
>>>>
>>>>A copy of this note is filed at:
>>>><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections+2011>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections+2011
>>>>
>>>>Avri Doria
>>>>Interim Chair, NCSG