True! I can reveal that our diplomats on the ground are working round the clock to resolve this issue amicably. Now preparing to tune into 'gnso online' for a live feed of their deliberations;) appreciated. On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Okay, okay. I thought it was pertinent to express just how far NPOC > leadership had crossed the line here, and what that appears to say about > their fundamental motives. But right now it's up to the Board to decide > how to respond about the election. Assuming the Board doesn't allow the > election to be questioned (and acts promptly to communicate that decision), > we can give everyone another chance to play nice. > > One hopes this exhausts appeals to higher authorities and efforts to > re-shape precedent with endless do-overs and delays. To continue that > would not be playing nice. A little good-faith participation and > transparency might go a long way in re-establishing some measure of trust > here, but it needs to be on both sides. A good starting point might be to > identify some points of common ground in order to build some measure of > consensus. Silence breeds doubt, and one cannot be surprised when the one > leads to the other. > > But, acknowledging transgression is also an important prerequisite to > building trust. Sometimes the best way to save face is to abandon attempts > to defend the indefensible. > > 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. > > > > At 8:46 AM +0300 10/23/11, Alex Gakuru wrote: > > p { margin-bottom: 2.12mm; } > > > >I believe icann (certainly the gnso) is basically a political organisation > >and I know that we all mean well towards best asserted public interest on > >policy development - amidst ever unfolding political developments. May I > >respectfully request for our best restraint awaiting the smooth resolution > >of this matter. Scratching one another with friendly fire, at this point > >in time, will only give the architects of non commercial voice collapse > >more ammo to divide and conquer us. > > > > > > > >On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Dan Krimm > ><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > >Avri, > > > >I am sympathetic to your wish that people would simply "pull back from > this > >battle they are brewing" (i.e., just grow up, already) but I am not > >particularly optimistic about it, for two reasons. > > > > (1) Formal structures of institutional organization have the effect in > >practice of reinforcing certain human tendencies while suppressing others. > >It may well be that the NCSG constituency structure is "lighter" than > other > >alternatives, but simply being forced to use any constituency structure at > >all intrinsically reinforces tribal behavior. If there are ways to > improve > >it, within the constraints mandated by staff/Board, let's do discuss them > >and try to implement them. In practical terms, we need to deal with the > >options before us. But we should acknowledge that the formal constituency > >structure presents challenges that are not necessarily easily overcome, > and > >that run in the wrong direction if not actively counteracted in some way. > > > > (2) It takes two to tango, and all it takes is one tribe to act like a > >tribe to make it so -- other tribes cannot prevent it, and must respond to > >the reality before them as given. In short, one tribe unilaterally can > >veto growing up, and no one can stop them. In the case of NPOC > leadership, > >it seems to me they started out ultra-tribal from the get-go -- they did > >not slip into it after joining up but rather were already there when they > >first appeared. > > > >Do you expect NPOC leadership to "mature" and stop fighting? If so, on > >what empirical basis? Whatever benefit of doubt for trust there may have > >been at this point has been seriously and indefinitely damaged by the > >recent letter complaining about the election, at least from my own point > of > >view. > > > >I agree that we *should* spend our energy trying to avoid going off the > >rails, but without cooperation from all sides it will not happen. NPOC > >leadership has a unilateral veto on that decision, and they appear to be > >intent on exercising it, I assume because they calculate that going off > the > >rails is preferable to allowing NCSG to operate in a democratic manner. I > >am open to evidence to the contrary, but until that evidence surfaces I > >cannot be optimistic about it, myself. How do you propose to convince > them > >to "mature" here? > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > >At 12:12 AM +0000 10/23/11, Avri Doria wrote: > >>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 >