[ga] Proposal: a GNSO without formal constituencies

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have never liked the idea of static pre-defined
constituencies.  They tend to ossify.  They usually
engender rote adherence to a party line and routinely
marginalize dissenting views.  

Having tracked constituency discussion lists for the
last five years, I have come to conclude that within
many constituency environments only a few members will
actually participate, and the incidence of true debate
therein is rare in the extreme.  

The policy proposals that emerge from constituencies
are almost always just a single person's work-product,
almost never a committee or task force or working
group submission; whatever the work-product presented,
it is almost always routinely approved as most
constituency members rarely have the time or the
motivation to take an active hand in document
drafting.  It also seems to be true that most
constituency members are usually "missing in action".

When constituencies do convene in a Council, opinions
are rarely if ever changed during the course of a
two-hour teleconference.  Constituencies might as well
take their views directly to the Board because a
constituency Council as presently operated offers
absolutely no "value-added".  

We would be better off with a single Assembly (what
the LSE termed "a centralized register" of all GNSO
participants).  In this Assembly ad hoc groups would
form (much like the companies, organizations, and
individuals that recently sent a joint letter to the
ICANN Board) -- see
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/industry-to-board-06sep06.pdf

They would unite on given issues, then dissolve their
temporary associations as they moved on to other
topics.  

By having all those actively engaged in the ICANN
process convened within this Assembly, issues would be
cast into the fire of debate and often enough a rough
consensus could emerge.  Even if consensus didn't
become a reality, at least the majority and minority
views would become evident with the key arguments and
positions being brought to the attention of the Board.

My own recommendation would be to formally dissolve
the GNSO Council in favor of the fluidity and
responsiveness that an Assembly structure offers.  We
all know from our own experience that discourse,
debate, discussion are the norm within an Assembly --
in the long run, that's a good thing for ICANN (even
though it might get a bit noisy at times).

As I see it, there would be no need for voting. 
Arguments would be mustered and positions conveyed to
the Board by different parties on an ad hoc basis. 
Ultimately the Board would decide which views hold the
greatest merit (just as they have done all along).

Finally, without formal constituencies no organization
becomes burdened by the prospect of onerous annual
organizational membership fees.  Each person will
participate as an individual and will declare his/her
interests/affiliations as a condition of membership.  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com