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]
>