Re: Schedule of NCDNHC

From: Milton Mueller (mueller@syr.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2000 - 16:17:52 PST


Further clarification. It looks like our concepts of "alternate/proxy" are not
that far apart, but our concepts of the NC and its function are separated by
light years....

Andrew McLaughlin wrote:

> Given that the
> NC does most of its work via email and uses proxy voting for important
> matters, the need for alternates is not apparent to me, while the harm
> entailed in doubling the effective size of the NC is.

Nothing in our approach to a designated alternate requires that they be included
in NC mailings or lurking in the background of NC telecons. Perhaps the concept
is closer to what you mean by a "proxy." For example, I served as Kathy's
designated alternate in LA, but have not been, and do not want to be, included
in NC mailings. However, we DO want our proxies to be able to speak at meetings
our elected representative cannot attend, simply as a delegate of the elected
member. We want equal persuasive power, not just voting power, and this notion
is fully consistent with the notion of the NC as a collegial deliberative body.

> More generally, the
> use of alternates implies that the NC consists of interested representatives
> of constituency interests, rather than individuals who happen to have been
> chosen by different constituency groups.

Andrew, forgive my impatience but this is precisely what the NC is, always has
been, and always will be: interested representatives of specific interests. If
it were not, we would elect NC representatives as individuals as not as
representatives of constituencies. Or we would allow someone from NCDNHC to vote
as a proxy for someone in the ccTLD constituency or TM/IP constituency. And we
would allow all constituencies to monitor the listservs of the others without
having to pay $900 membership fees. The whole constituency structure was
designed to perform the function of guaranteeing representation to certain
special interests. We do not alter this fact by making up fairy tales about
accountability to the Public Good.

> In my view, each NC representative
> should be accountable to the DNSO as a whole, rather than just to a single
> constituency group.

Then have them be elected by the DNSO as a whole.

> NC reps bear a responsibility to keep the constituency
> informed and involved, etc., but as NC reps they are responsible for
> advancing the cause of consensus in the DNSO as a whole.

Perhaps you have not been privy to the political trenches of ICANN's working
groups, where B&C and TM/IP constituency members routinely threaten that things
they don't like will be blocked in the Names Council, where they think they have
the votes. I believe them, too. No, the NC is run by a coalition of special
interests. There is no concern with consensus there that I can discern.

> Bottom line: As a matter of Bylaws interpretation, I just don't agree that
> 3 + 3 = 3.

3 NC reps + 3 Alternates = 3 NC reps, just as 3 apples and 3 oranges = 3 apples.

> If you want to allow alternates, I suggest that you propose to the NC an
> amendment to the ICANN Bylaws. As you know, we will soon be launching the

> first annual review of the DNSO; it seems like the question of alternates
> would be a good subject to take up in that context.

I guess we will have to do that. This is a constructive suggestion and thank
you for it. I personally will not bother you with any more discussion of this
point.

--MM

---
You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Kent@SONGBIRD.COM
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:38 PDT