I just want to say that i believe in the merit of this proposal. I am 
not for it because i believe that whatever 
ideological-axis-across-issues tribe i am in would gain some advantage 
by implementing it, or that on the contrary some other tribes would lose 
out.

Like you imply, in the space of issue-positions, there is not an 
infinity of ideological axis that can exist linking those 
issue-positions, and so, many people will naturally share certain 
configurations. Ideologies, (or your preferred concept for referring to 
this abstract thing we may also call , among many candidate, a world 
view) no matter how loosely defined they may be, are scarce.

I am of the belief that, often in life, and quite naturally too, people 
"do not hear each other not hear each other" (translation for: "ne 
s'entendent pas ne pas s'entendre"). I am furthermore of the strange 
belief that understanding other's configurations of issue-positions may 
broaden your perspective and liberate your opinion so that it may change 
more freely, more based on the merits of different foundations for a 
particular issue-position, and more based on the merits of alternative 
implementation details. Perhaps there could even emerge from such a 
structured interactions some new ideological configurations that never 
quite existed which could steer policy debate into very interesting 
territory. Who knows.

Finally there are many theoretically-based justifications that could be 
put forth for assessing the merit of Dan's proposal , but transaction 
costs cover as broad a part of those grounds as any, even though they 
might not necessarily cover all those grounds. And ultimately some 
people may very well disagree with Dan's proposal on it's merit.

But i am in agreement with Dan on the merit of this proposal, and i just 
wanted to underline the fact that it is in good faith.

Nicolas, NCUC


On 7/23/2011 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Don't know if it matters to your you argument, but people can be member of (0,1,2) constituencies.
>
> a.
>
> On 23 Jul 2011, at 17:14, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> This makes a lot of sense.  Nevertheless, I wonder if it would be a useful
>> custom for people to identify which constituencies they are affiliated
>> with, when they comment on-list.
>>
>> Would this tend to tribalize us in unproductive ways, or would it make more
>> transparent the context in which our comments are made?  Presumably
>> constituency affiliation is not a secret, but if there is significant extra
>> effort entailed to discover this information it may tend to be generally
>> less visible (economists call this "transaction cost"), especially for
>> participants who are more sporadic in their participation.
>>
>> There is some sense in which we strive here to let words speak on their own
>> merits, but in the real-life human-political world there is a lot of
>> rhetoric floating around that masquerades as something other than what its
>> real intent is.  My feeling is that tribal affiliation would not undermine
>> words offered in good faith (unless tribalism might close the minds of some
>> readers before they can absorb the words of a different tribe on the
>> merits), but might help inoculate against misleading statements intended to
>> manipulate rather than enlighten.
>>
>> We've already experienced the beginnings of contextual mistrust inherent in
>> the formation of new formal constituencies, in this stakeholder group.  In
>> an ideal world, we would have been successful in pushing back against this
>> formalization of internal tribalism.  But now that this tribalism has been
>> formally established as the structure we are mandated to exist within, I
>> think it is probably better to acknowledge it full-on rather than try to
>> operate as if it was not there.
>>
>> NCSG is now an umbrella group for a set of sub-groups that may from time to
>> time have divergent views and interests, even though there is presumably
>> some reason to think that our interests will tend to diverge less among our
>> sub-groups than between our and other stakeholder groups.  If we try to
>> operate as if we were still "one big happy family" the divergent interests
>> will still exist but tend to operate under the radar, and that's probably
>> bad for our collective discourse (though perhaps might serve the interest
>> of a particular tribe, at the expense of other tribes).
>>
>> We should continue to seek consensus wherever possible, and it's always
>> better to discuss things in good faith, but I think we should do so with
>> full awareness of structural differences that may persist among the tribes.
>> I think this might minimize the potential for bad faith arguments to be
>> sustained without detection.  The fact is, we have already been tribalized
>> by mandated organizational structure and nothing we do to reach for
>> non-tribal discussion can change that reality, which will inevitably drive
>> the motivations informing our discussions.  So, given that axiom, I think
>> transparency is the way to proceed.
>>
>> In fact, the silver lining of forced/formal tribalism is that it tends to
>> expose the informal tribalism that may have existed beforehand, anyway.
>>
>> Dan, NCUC
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 9:12 PM +0100 7/23/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>>> I would like to encourage all constituencies and their chairs to use this
>>> list for policy discussions and to direct their members to do so. This is
>>> not only an issue of good faith, but it is vital for the promotion of
>>> transparent and democratic decision-making. Non-commercial voice in ICANN
>>> has evolved through its diverse and open dialogue and I hope that this
>>> continues to take place in this new list.
>>>
>>> KK
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>>> Senior Lecturer in Law,
>>> Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law,
>>> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses,
>>> ICANN NCUC Chair
>>> University of Strathclyde,
>>> Graham Hills Bld.
>>> 50 George Street,
>>> Glasgow, G1 1BA,
>>> UK
>>> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
>>> email: [log in to unmask]