Re: [council] Task Forces and diversity

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Milton wrote:
> 
> I think Elisabeth has pointed out one of the inherent problems
> of using small, highly selective Task Forces rather than
> open Working Groups. 

==> You have a point here. For the UDRP TF the group of 20 is probably
    not sufficient. How many people are listed in WIPO-1 report ?
> 
> By limiting the number of participants to such a small number,
> one raises an issue of representation. If the group consists of
> only 10 members, those 10 must somehow represent "the world."

==> Not 10, but 20.

> 
> Although that part of her logic is correct, 
> I cannot support Elisabeth's proposal. It attempts to make 
> groups of 10 or 15 "representative" according to 
> geography or national origin. This would 1) dramatically slow
> down the process, 2) politicize it, and 3) make membership and
> participation contingent upon factors that have nothing to
> do with someone's willingness or ability to participate. 

==> I do not agree with your logic here.
    Slowing down the process to include people from the large
    world, is speeding up internationalization !
    I would like to see the world developped in such a way
    that lawyers from one or another region could be taken indifferently
    for the job. To do so, they need to be part of the work, 
    active participant, not just readers of reports drafted by others.
    It is all the contrary to politicization - when you work together
    you learn together, you are able to understand better, and be faster
    next time.
    And yes I agree, willigness to participate is necessary -
    and we are lucky enought to have lawyers from 3 continents
    willing to work and poarticipate.
    Are they able to do so ? Well, what do you mean by "ability to 
    participate" ? Able to fit into US scheme of work ? 
    They are all qualified lawyers.

> 
> 1) Slowness.
> If her proposed rule is adopted, no constituency could make a 
> decision about who would represent it on a TF - their representative 
> would depend on the geographic composition of the members 
> selected by every other constituency. So each constituency would have 
> to dig up 5 members for every single nomination, one from each region.
> Some of those nominations would be made not because the
> individual knew anything or was even eager to participate, 
> but simply because the constituency needed to fill a 
> geographic slot. The final TF would have to be selected 
> through a tortuous kind of combinatorial logic. And who
> would make these decisions, and on what basis?  Some 
> constituencies would not get the representative they really
> wanted. That's the worst part of it. They would get the representative 
> that filled the "proper" geographic slot. 

==> I am of opinion that the world is made with humans, and that
    on professional level all of them may be replaced - just
    look on every memorial and see how many people have been replaced.
    The issue is to have the global worldwide knowledge,
    and to have the world developping and working together.
    Therefore proceeding in such a way as there is always several
    possible replacements.

> 
> 2. Politicization.
> And why are we privileging geographic origin? It seems to have
> no relationship to the actual policy issues we face. YJ Park and
> I often vote together on policy issues, but we are in different
> regions; Roger Cochetti and I are often in disagreement but 
> we are in the same region. The idea of territorial representation
> is OK as a very broad, high-level constraint upon Board and
> Names Council elections, but when it comes to the specifics
> of policy it makes no sense at all.

==> My comments on composition are not related to on how the people
    votes on policy. I am happy to learn that YJP and Milton
    vote similar - it certainly happen because you work together and
    you have chance to understand better how other person think and why.
    If we did not have geographic diversity criteria for NC reps,
    the odds are high it would be even more monotonous and less 
    international.

> 
> 3. Ability
> Anyone involved in a DNSO constituency knows that when
> work is conducted by volunteers you go with whoever is willing
> and able to do the work. Willingness and ability, not geographic
> origins, are the MOST critical factors in this work. Some constituencies
> have elected NC members who promptly disappear. What kind
> of representation is that? It doesn't matter what country someone
> is from if they don't show up. Likewise, one can hardly be 
> represented adequately by someone who doesn't know anything
> about the topic. I am not suggesting that some regions
> know less about issues than others. What I am saying is that if
> individuals are chosen for TF work based primarily upon their
> geographic origin and not their williness and ability to serve, there
> is a greater chance that the person selected will be ineffectual.

==> Words, words, words. How do you judge A PRIORI that
    the willing to work people are not able to serve ? How do you
    know it without even seeing people and trying to discuss together ?
    Shall the able candidate be "famous in the US" to be accepted ?
    I see volunteers, from various countries, 3 continents,
    willing to be part to the process. All lawyers, bio provided.

    By admitting them to the group you make them all evangelise
    the UDRP review issues withing their countries, you gain an
    extraordinary outreach, you will learn what various countries
    may have as experience with UDRP. It is just better for everybody.

    Bottom line: would you really be part to a Review Group
    dominated by 16 NA for 3 Europeans, 1 African 1 Asian 1 LatinAmerican ?
    Do you think that any outcome from such a group will be perceived
    as legitimate ? Do you think it will make a good opinion to ICANN
    and the Names Council ? Do you think it makes sense to set up
    and international body if it is not ? Why do you need the world here 
    if you consider you may do everything on the world behalf ?

    Elisabeth

> 
> Nevertheless, it is true that with small, closed groups we
> also increase the chance that some significant part of the
> affected community will be excluded from proper representation.
> The real solution to this dilemma is to have an open working
> group structure, and to learn how to manage the problems
> of openness.
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
>