That is a great analysis of some of the multistakeholder processes and challenges, imo.
Please excuse my mobile brevity.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:45:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating the organization's policy development process?
Dear Robin, dear Colleagues:
I agree that GNSO should file too... but will they (Maria's question)? Two complaints (GNSO + NCSG) are better than one (Avri's statement)...
3 questions:
1) From my little experience, I find the ICANN Ombudsman process ineffective - it is time consuming (we are volunteers/the other side is paid), a lot of pain for usually not much gain! Not saying we should not do it, just wondering out loud if we have a chance at all of being successful? or even partially successful? or if we should invest our time in other ways?
2) Robin, I fully understand your TM arguments and they make sense to me as a non-specialist. Can you please elaborate a bit on who the "powerful political interests" you refer to are? This may help me and others at the base of the NCSG pyramid understand the context and the issue better...
3) Did Maria fill a complaint to the Ombudsman? and where is it at now?
4) I also have a point of view or perhaps an hypothesis to share, from many years of applied MS practice funding developmental and applied policy research in developing countries - may not be relevant but here it is anyway for feedback and reflexion...
I see the MS process as one of fundamental inclusion and participation... It is more relevant than ever because of the internet and the networks that spring from it...
...the more you are at the bottom of the pyramid ($, knowledge, assets like land ownership, cash, access to resources, etc...) the more you seek participation as a way of climbing up the pyramid (getting yourself out of poverty). The higher you are in the pyramid, the less you welcome participation because it is disruptive at the very least.
Inherent to this "MS model" is the power struggle between closely vested interests (in our case the CHP and part of the NCHP) and higher level or principled interests (in our case the rest of NCHP). Not that there are not closely vested interests as well as principled interests everywhere in an MS organization, including ICANN.
Closely vested interests are very time sensitive (profits, status and privileges are lessened by indecision and ambiguity - the rules of the game are not clear driving the the "powerful political interests" crazy!) while principled interests are less time sensitive (although short term costs are usually huge too) because they are universal.
So here comes a question: How does an operational organization like ICANN wishing to become better at MS behavior (we can assume that anyway for the eternal optimist) resolves the issue of closely vested vs. principled interests?
They are by nature in tension and should be... What is essential is to keep a balance... For instance, taking just one of the financial dimensions, it is the DNS supply side that keeps feeding extra cash into ICANN and the DNS demand side does not have the means to bring this in balance, although it is the market.... it is a bit of a class struggle (or concentration of power differentials on the supply and demand sides) in the sense that if you do not keep this delicate balance the system will eventually fail. It is a matter of time!
I for one would like to see ICANN survive as an MS organization, being able to keep the "rapport de forces" in equilibrium.
I would love to hear a criticism of this model's assumption and also perhaps if it can help in bringing back balance... or is it simply a theoretical treatment?
Best, Alain
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Horacio T. Cadiz
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I support filing a case.
--
Bombim Cadiz
*****************************************
* Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) -- *
* No windows. No gates. It is open. *
* No Bill. It is Free. *
*****************************************
--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.