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