Politics isn't a nicely defined processual thing. The cg will have lots of impact without being decisional.
Please excuse my mobile brevity.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:48:30
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] IANA transition coordination group: some requests for feedback
This discussion has been useful to me, to understand just what the CG is
supposed (says who?) to be doing.
If indeed CG is a liaison body and not a decision-making body, then there
is no need for GAC or any other stakeholder group to come to consensus as
an individual stakeholder *group* (i.e., no need to "sort out *its* own
position" -- just bring all positions from their group onto the table).
Either there is consensus at the total-CG level or not. In fact, it would
be better if *artificial* consensus were not manufactured spuriously at
lower levels, because that would not necessarily reflect true consensus of
all individual stakeholders. If there is real lack of consensus for a
specific issue, then that should not be included in the consensus part of
the report and should be punted to a legitimate decision-making process.
It seems increasingly important to me to emphasize the liaison nature of
CG (as opposed to decision-making) and to benchmark all other choices off
of that axiom.
So, as long as this can be clarified for all stakeholders, especially the
GAC, then I have no objection to a few additional members on CG, because
they are not really "representing" GAC member views so much as simply
communicating them to the full CG. (Would GAC participants relay in good
faith positions of GAC members in conflict with a participant's
individual/national interests? That's really the question here. Are they
politically capable of doing this?)
Coordinating is not the same thing as deciding, and if the point of the CG
is simply to discover the "first cut" of what has broad consensus and what
has yet to be decided, then whatever is necessary to ensure that this is
the process that the CG actually implements is the important thing.
If CG is not "The Decider" then everyone involved needs to be clear on
that at the outset, and to acknowledge that they can operate appropriately
within this framework.
However, it might be prudent to consider what happens if this cannot be
achieved. If the CG were to somehow evolve into a decision-making body
*after* structural choices have been made based on it being a liaison
body, then that is a recipe for dysfunction (and sneak attacks re
decision-making).
Can the ground rules be etched in stone in some formal manner before we
voice a position on the number-of-GAC-representatives question?
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.
On Tue, July 15, 2014 1:10 pm, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> All,
>
> My last two comments before consensus, whatever that is:
>
> Minor: The logic behind more positions for GAC suggests that NCSG is
> also grossly under-represented. But I think not!
> Major: The CG should, as its first order of business, clarify the rules
> of the process and the nature of the deliverable.
>
> Prediction: More GAC members on the CG will present GAC with more
> challenges sorting out its own position.
> Also, the more likely GAC internal divisions of opinion will spill over
> into the CG. Hope I am wrong here.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 15/07/2014 3:45 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:
>>
>> Milton and colleagues,
>>
>> Given that this is a discussion that seeks to find consensus, I want
>> to share an observation. As I said before, I was not inclined to
>> agree to more government members in the CG. In the other hand, I
>> would hate to see the CG weakened in status for the reasons expressed
>> by Bill. And I add, there are somewhat of a parallel here to the
>> WGIG. The WGIG was at a crossroads in search for new solutions in
>> uncharted waters. Although organized differently, the CG has a
>> similar mandate. Because of that, I am now more inclined to say that
>> Bill and Avri have a unique perspective in this case, and that
>> consensus should follow their views. In any case, as it has been
>> suggested, the rules of the process are not clear as of this moment.
>>
>> Roy Balleste
>>
>> Law Library Director &
>>
>> Professor of Law
>>
>> St. Thomas University Law Library
>>
>> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
>>
>> Miami Gardens, FL 33054
>>
>> 305-623-2341
>>
>
>
|
