Okay Andrew, so there are three possible positions here regarding transparency: (1) Mandated transparency (2) No position, individual choice (3) Mandated opacity And you're saying that because the process of choosing mandated transparency was not a bottom-up process, it may be procedurally illegitimate. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please. This is how I'm reading you.) I think it's worth distinguishing at least some internal procedural policies (how does ICANN work) from substantive policies (how does DNS work). ICANN was formed initially by a top-down process of incorporation in the State of California, with an operating agreement with NTIA/Commerce Dept. I don't think that process of institutional definition necessarily has to conform to a bottom-up process (or if it does, perhaps any *changes* in it need to have more than rough consensus -- perhaps they should be required to have *full/unanimous* consensus -- cf. more difficult processes to change the US Constitution than to enact laws under it). Was transparency of operation of policy-making bodies in ICANN's institutional definition from the get-go? If so, I don't think we need to insist that it adhere to bottom-up definition procedures. Of course, since ICANN's institutional definition is about to come under a new authority, I suppose that means everything is out the window, like a new constitutional convention. I think personally that transparency of MS policy-making bodies is so important as to make it a fundamental, unchangeable characteristic of any MS process. Without it, I don't see how the MS process can ultimately succeed on its own basic terms. 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 12:59 PM +0900 5/8/14, Andrew A. Adams wrote: >Dan Krimm wrote: >> Personally, I would vote in favor of transparency over rough consensus, and >> I would not stop advocating for transparency across the board even if >> consensus were to go against it formally. Can we really go anywhere >> "consensus" demands? I think there are limits to that stance, and this is >> an example of such limits. >> >> Even if no other bodies within ICANN choose to comply with the transparency >> principle, and even if it leaves us at a tactical disadvantage (they get to >> "spy" on us while preventing us from "spying" on them), I think we would do >> well to choose to adhere to our own principle of transparency, regardless. >> >> Even if all other ICANN bodies view this as an "error" we can at least >> agree to disagree on that matter. And we shouldn't ever let the matter >> rest if it has not reached consensus to favor institutional transparency. >> Without transparency, any policy-formulation process is utterly lost to >> being broadly representational, which seems the highest mission of a >> multi-stakeholder (MS) process. >> >> Of course, not all participants in a MS process are committed to the MS >> process per se -- they may just be participating in whatever process >> presents itself to try to gain as much narrow advantage as possible in any >> way they can, and they would use whatever influence they have within the >> process to shape the procedural details to their narrow advantage, whether >> this fits the overall mission and principles of MS process or not. >> >> My personal opinion is that any entity that opposes the practice of >> transparency is not truly dedicated to MS process in principle, and should >> be viewed as being amenable to potentially undermining MS process if it >> gets in the way of their proprietary outcomes. In short, lack of >> transparency undermines broad collective trust, and without trust the MS >> process has a difficult time succeeding in practice, at least on its own >> conceptual terms. > >Dan, while I agree with you that we should be both promoting and enacting >transparency in NCSG, I think you have a logical error in your argument >above. Unless there isa rough consensus specifically AGAINST transparency, >i.e. a rough consensus FOR opacity (of process), then there is no >inconsistency here. NCSG can argue that transparency is the way all SGs (and >many other elements of ICANN) should operate and as a thought-leader on that >may implement transparency internally. A rough consensus view that >transparency should not be mandated, however, is not the same as a rough >consensus view that opacity should be mandated. Such a rough consensus could >come about because most of the other groups feel that within some groups the >benefits of opacity outweigh the benefits of transparency, while for others >it may be the other way around and so the rough consensus is not to mandate >or even recommend anything either way. This, I think, also answwers Avri's >point if it is on principle grounds: 1. NCSG internally has consensus or >rough consensus on transparency, and thus we operate in a transparent manner. >At this point, though, the current mandate for transparency from SGs may be >illegitimate (as a mandate) because it was imposed from above without >reference to the suitable MS process. So, as has often happened before, we >can say that we actually agree with an idea, but oppose its current >implementation because of the manner in which it was promulgated. We should >therefore work to persuade the other SGs that they should reach a rough >consensus FOR transparency, with a fallback position of arguing strongly >against any declarations FOR opacity. > > > >-- >Professor Andrew A Adams [log in to unmask] >Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/