[governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support

[George Sadowsky]

Bill,

I wonder if you (or someone else) could address the problem of 
potential capture.

I understand that the voting scheme is to allow large organizations 4 
votes, small organizations 2 votes and individuals 1 vote.  It seems 
to me that it would not be difficult to mount a campaign in which a 
significant number of individuals, all of whom have a legitimate 
interest in ICANN, could be mobilized to vote for a specific slate of 
candidates, in effect capturing the new organization.  such a capture 
could theoretically be engineered by either the current group of 
leaders, or by another group completely outside the current 
structure, or anywhere inbetween.

I understand that the problem of preventing capture is a difficult 
one.  Our experience with the ICANN direct elections in 2001 proved 
that beyond a doubt.  so I'm not arguing against the proposal just 
because the group hasn't definitively solved this intractable 
problem.  However I really would like to hear opinions regarding the 
capture issue, because I think it is a real possibility.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 9:51 AM +0100 3/24/09, William Drake wrote:
>Hi McTim,
>
>I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.
>
>On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>>Hullo Mary,
>>
>>On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>>>
>>>- Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial organizations;
>>
>>yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
>>excluded.
>
>The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that 
>patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade 
>associations, investors) and will be represented in other 
>stakeholder groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme 
>of putting actors into one stakeholder group and not another is 
>ICANN's, not ours, and it maps with standard practices in public 
>policymaking bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many 
>standards bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of 
>actors per se, sorry but there's a big world out there that for 
>sound reasons are not based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of 
>it.  The proposal just says how the board's model is to be locally 
>implemented by specifying that the noncommercial users SG is for 
>noncommercial users just as the commercial users SG is for 
>commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should be recalled that we do 
>include the possibility of flexibility regarding orgs and 
>individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not ineligible due to 
>their own or their organization's membership in another GNSO SG or 
>the ccNSO.
>
>If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture 
>stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced 
>with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply 
>different interests will magically emerge through cool technical 
>reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.  
>But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework 
>alongside others would be rather unfair.
>
>>The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.
>
>No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone 
>has to review and decide on applications, and this is an 
>appropriately accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided 
>by explicit charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke 
>filled room, and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in 
>which someone with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial 
>rather than one of the business SGs would be rejected.  And 
>constituency approval is left to the board, informed by a public 
>comment period.
>
>>>
>>>- In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User Constituency
>>>(NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member (individual
>>>or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new NCSG, and no
>>>existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new structure.
>>
>>Except for:
>>
>>" 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the 
>>June 2009 ICANN
>>meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
>>terms of the 3
>>NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until 
>>June 2010."
>
>Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the 
>transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in 
>engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a 
>time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents 
>capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just 
>be beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six 
>plug and play candidates on the fly.
>
>These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject 
>the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and 
>transparent consultation process and continuously revised in 
>interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is 
>far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the 
>table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and 
>Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these 
>too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bill
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance