[ga] ERC Report: More on Policy-Making.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

   The Evolution and Reform Committee has published its [1]First 
   Interim Implementation Report. Among other topics, this report 
   includes comments on the ERC's ideas on ICANN's future 
   policy-making process, and some comments on the [2]Names Policy 
   Development Process Assistance Group's Preliminary Framework.

   The process suggested by the ERC roughly looks like this: First, 
   everyone interested makes their views known in a fair and open 
   process. Then, the ERC hopes, the actual influence of the ideas 
   advanced - in the Policy Council's subsequent discussions - will 
   depend on their merit. Those participating in the process (i.e., 
   the members of the Council) should then strive to reach consensus; 
   if consensus can't be reached, the reasons should be documented. 
   The Council would finally forward its documented recommendation to 
   the Board, which would take final action.

   These ideas sound nice in theory - however, I have some doubt 
   whether the actual Policy Councils will be able to deliver on 
   these requirements.

   More precisely, if the Councils act according to the 
   "responsibility for the greater good" theories the ERC has 
   articulated in earlier publications, this may work out. However, 
   this approach is apparently not compatible with the [3]desires of 
   the current DNSO constituencies. Further, the ERC itself also 
   seems to deviate from it in the paper at hand - after all, it 
   discusses the case that a consensus solution can't be found 
   because of the unreasonable or irrational refusal by one or more 
   parties to seek consensus. (But maybe I'm just getting their 
   definition of "consensus" wrong. Consensus among what group?)

   If, on the other hand, the Councils continue to consist of a 
   limited number of representatives (not "delegates"!) from 
   individual stakeholder groups who exclusively look at their own 
   (and their strategic allies') interests, outside opinions and 
   arguments will hardly be judged by their merit, but rather by the 
   question whether or not they are considered helpful for this or 
   that fraction's position.

   There is another point in which this paper crucially deviates from 
   the ERC's earlier thinking: Some of the earlier documents tried to 
   make it less important to be on the Names Council. The  
   policy-making approach outlined in this document makes it even  
   more important. That way, the question what constituencies can be  
   added how becomes once more crucial. Even though the blueprint's  
   construction of the Council attempts to make adding new  
   constituencies a less political issue than it is today (by  
   mandating a certain basic balance between provider and user  
   constituencies), the NC's current thinking clearly indicates that  
   the established constituencies would have to go a fairly long way  
   until this goal could actually be accomplished (assuming that  
   consent by existing constituencies is desirable).

References

   1. http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/first-implementation-report-01aug02.htm
   2. http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
   3. http://log.does-not-exist.org/archive-0208.html#02080121351028230514

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html