[Mmwg] Combining models

[David Allen]

If we conclude for some representation, then we can see how there is 
'capture' in all such situations - by those in the representative 
positions.  In this context the question becomes:  How do we 
encourage 'good' capture, quality leadership in other words?  The 
short answer seems to be:  through trust in quality people.  Which is 
why we find people like Markus Kummer and Nitin Desai and Masood Khan 
entrusted with leadership.

Their insistence on evenhandedness, the encouragement of all voices, 
along with innovative, unusual ideas out of the mainstream, the 
abolition of ad hominem invective, the insightful spur, when the 
dialog needs it - all are examples of bulwark against 'bad' capture. 
(Structural arrangements are surely also important - leadership is 
drawn to workable structure.)

So it seems we do not escape the need for trust, even when we turn to 
structure and discipline.

Vittorio's entirely intriguing proposal brings together in a concrete 
way two opposites we need.  Can we build from that foundation?  A 
bureau?  My impression - pls correct if in error - is that the 
present bureau is more for facilitation.  Facilitation is vital, but 
Vittorio's would also I think vitally look to leadership in its 
functions.  As with any group worth its salt, many of those leaders 
emerge from the larger group.

This could amount to suggesting a novel organizational model, in the 
UN system.  Perhaps it should not be presented that way - that might 
engender resistance.  Nonetheless it might advance our better working 
with governments and also invite them to consider it too.

David

>  > Model 1 allows you to take decisions; deliberating in model 2 is 
>>  extremely difficult and subject to capture.
>
>Vittorio's proposal has some merit but the underlying analysis is 
>faulty. People always talk about the risk that an open group will be 
>"captured." In fact, risk of capture is far greater with closed 
>groups. Interest groups with power can define the admission and 
>voting procedures in a way that reinforces their control. Defining 
>admission and voting procedures can be used to lock in their 
>advantage. That is capture.
>
>Open groups can be dominated (usually temporarily) by stacking the 
>deck and other tricks, but rarely captured. To capture something you 
>have to shut off participation by gaining control of admission and 
>voting procedures. While I agree that domination by unrepresentative 
>groups at an open meeting is a problem, I think that structural 
>capture via model 1 is a much more serious problem.
>
>>  So I think that what we need is a mix of the two: model 2 to 
>>  develop policy proposals, and model 1 to approve them.
>
>Again, not necessarily a bad idea, but here is a potential problem: 
>A split model invites the general public to spend thousands of their 
>dollars and many many hours of their time to develop a proposal in 
>an open process, and then throws it up to a (captured?) closed 
>structure which may have no incentive to reflect the interests, 
>desires, or discussion of the open group. What recourse do the 
>participants have? In what way is the closed group accountable to a 
>broader public?
>
>If I were a power-monger who wanted to dominate the proceedings, I 
>would invest all of my time and money getting people placed on the 
>"model 1" structure and very little time on the model 2 process. So 
>let's be careful with that.
>
>
>Dr. Milton Mueller


>hi,
>
>i think this is a good approach.  and i think something using an 
>ietf model could be an interesting starting point.  though the 
>internal structure that is used for the bureau (the iesg-like 
>entity), not being technical area oriented would need to be modified 
>and could conceivably run parallel to the constituency model 
>indicated in Luc's message - though i would hope it would allow for 
>individuals to somehow be represented in the bureau as well (a 
>tricky proposal as we know from ICANN).
>
>a.
>
>On 17 jan 2006, at 03.27, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I would like to submit an initial consideration.
>>
>>People usually have one of two different macro-models in mind:
>>
>>1) one in which you have a closed group (whether it would be formed 
>>by 20 individuals or by 500 accredited organizations is a 
>>second-level problem) with formal admission and voting procedures, 
>>so that you can take decisions in a transparent way;
>>
>>2) another one in which you have an open room, physical or virtual, 
>>in which everyone can walk in and participate, and then someone 
>>calls rough consensus.
>>
>>Model 1 allows you to take decisions; deliberating in model 2 is 
>>extremely difficult and subject to capture. On the other hand, 
>>model 2 allows for participation by everyone, including 
>>individuals, and allows good ideas to flow and to float.
>>
>>So I think that what we need is a mix of the two: model 2 to 
>>develop policy proposals, and model 1 to approve them.
>>
>>Which, by the way, reflects the IETF model: you have open working 
>>groups where a Chair calls consensus, but then you have a formally 
>>constituted closed body (the IESG) that formally approves or 
>>rejects the results.
>>
>>What do you think of this?
>>--
>>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
>>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...