It seems to me that there are at least three reasons for having a Names
Council composed of more than one representative from each constituency.
First is to distribute power. No matter how narrowly we conceive the role
of the Names Council, even the power to set an agenda, draft meeting
minutes, coordinate consensus and report to the ICANN Board is power.
This is especially true in a new organization, where there is uncertain
leadership and no clear patterns or precedents for decision-making. More
participants on the NC dillutes the power of any one person to control
the process.
Second is trust. One of the key themes running through the ICANN
Cambridge meeting was whether we trusted this board. While there were
additional reasons that this was a concern with the ICANN board, it is a
concern with *any* new organization. How can a new group of people who
are unfamiliar with each other, who may be competitors in their various
markets, and who have never worked together before trust one another
enough to elect just *one* of them to a position of power? Over time,
this trust will develop, but at this juncture, it is unrealistic to ask
any constituency to place its trust in one person.
Third is diversity. We are trying to represent diverse interests from
disparate parts of the world. More NC reps will not guarantee that a
diverse group is elected, but it should help.
* * * * *
The trade off is that too many NC reps will create a body that is so
large that it cannot effectively perform its functions (whatever we
conceive those functions to be). A smaller group would likely act faster
and reach consensus quicker. (But I'm not sure that's a good thing at
this stage.)
Weighing the various factors, I would support a larger NC.
Bret Fausett
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bret A. Fausett
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
e-mail: baf@fausett.com
http://www.fausett.com
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::