[council] Who should participate in policy formulation?

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

On the last conference call, the gTLDs and registrar representatives 
(Roger and Ken) raised two points in the discussion that I think need 
some general response and consideration.

1) At one point, Ken raised teh concern that making certain changes was 
an undeserved "carrot" the ccTLD consticuency.

2) At a different point, Roger argued that a consticuency which says 
"this item does not effect me" should not participate in formulating a 
policy.

As regards to the first point, I don't think we should worry about 
"carrots" and "sticks" in this drafting exercise.  If the goal is to 
build an ICANN that has support among stakeholders, one of the things 
that has to happen is we look at where stakeholders have expressed 
disatsifaction and try to fix it.  This is not a "carrot" or a "reward," 
in my opinion.  It is a practical understanding that a consticuency can 
have some real complaints about how things have worked in the process 
and that this represents an opportunity to fix those problems.

As such, I really hope we can set aside fights that arose under the 
previous system.  One of the primary purposes of this exercise is to 
eliminate the points of friction and get ICANN working smoothly and 
generally accepted among stakeholders.  This cannot happen if we hold 
grudges and try to"punish" consticuencies for the very frictions we are 
trying to eliminate.

As regards to the second point, a consticuency can quite legitimately 
take a position that something doesn't effect it and want to stay in the 
policy development.  For one thing, they may discover someday that they 
are wrong, and that they will have missed their only chance to set 
policy.  It is not productive to force consticuencies to chose between 
participating and maintaining that a certain policy lies outside their 
constituency.

In addition, the development of policy can be aided from the experience 
of other constituencies, even where those consticuencies do not appear 
directly affected.  Particularly at preliminary stages, we should 
broaden, rather than narrow, the avilable pool of expertise.

Finally, as some one else added on the call, a party not directly 
affected can often play a role as mediator or "honest broker" if a 
dispute arises.

Harold Feld