><<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