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] >