Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

[Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>]

>> There is a big
>> difference between a Names Council that has policy making
>> power and one that just has the responsibility of
>> coordinating a consensus building process within the total
>> DNSO.
>
>This question was brought up in Monterrey. I and others argued for the
>latter function of the Names Council, and suggested that in that case
>each constituency would need only a single representative on it, since
>that person would simply be conveying the decisions of the
>constituency's members. 

It seems to me that there are at least three reasons for having a Names 
Council composed of more than one representative from each constituency.

First is to distribute power. No matter how narrowly we conceive the role 
of the Names Council, even the power to set an agenda, draft meeting 
minutes, coordinate consensus and report to the ICANN Board is power. 
This is especially true in a new organization, where there is uncertain 
leadership and no clear patterns or precedents for decision-making. More 
participants on the NC dillutes the power of any one person to control 
the process.

Second is trust. One of the key themes running through the ICANN 
Cambridge meeting was whether we trusted this board. While there were 
additional reasons that this was a concern with the ICANN board, it is a 
concern with *any* new organization. How can a new group of people who 
are unfamiliar with each other, who may be competitors in their various 
markets, and who have never worked together before trust one another 
enough to elect just *one* of them to a position of power? Over time, 
this trust will develop, but at this juncture, it is unrealistic to ask 
any constituency to place its trust in one person.

Third is diversity. We are trying to represent diverse interests from 
disparate parts of the world. More NC reps will not guarantee that a 
diverse group is elected, but it should help.

     * * * * *

The trade off is that too many NC reps will create a body that is so 
large that it cannot effectively perform its functions (whatever we 
conceive those functions to be). A smaller group would likely act faster 
and reach consensus quicker. (But I'm not sure that's a good thing at 
this stage.)

Weighing the various factors, I would support a larger NC.

Bret Fausett




:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

     Bret A. Fausett
     Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
     e-mail: baf@fausett.com
     http://www.fausett.com

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::