[CWG-Stewardship] Principles: Capture

[Milton L Mueller]

Martin:
I do not know what "who nominally should be able to drive consensus" means. The word 'nominally' is not what bothers me, it is the word "drive consensus." I think it should say something like, "whose agreement or nonobjection would be required to achieve consensus." 

Further, the definition is a bit one dimensional. One can capture institutions in many more ways than simply dictating or defining consensus. For example, one could capture a process by gaining the power to exclude critical or dissenting voices from ever being represented in a consensus process (e.g., something akin to the way nominating committees often work - the alternate views or controversial people are never selected by those in power and then the select group has no trouble at all achieving consensus).
 
The concept of "capture," which has its roots in regulatory economics referring to the capture of regulatory agencies by the regulated industry, and is not just about consensus. It's also about revolving doors between regulator and industry, about dominating the information flow within an institution, etc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:12 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg; CWG Stewardship
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: Capture
> 
> Thanks Alan, that is helpful.
> 
> Just so I am sure that I understand the implications correctly, what we are
> saying is that there needs to be a positive engagement to support any
> particular outcome or decision or direction of travel.  Limited response and
> abstentions (unless because of conflict of interest, I suppose) would be a
> measure of capture.
> 
> Obviously the principles are not the place to set markers, but your draft
> footnote would at least give a measureable basis for capture that might need
> to be addressed in the final proposal.
> 
> Thanks for your proposal.  I'd welcome any comments on it from other
> participants or members of the CWG.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: 06 January 2015 02:13
> To: CWG Stewardship
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles: Capture
> 
> A long time ago, I said I would come up with a footnote for the Principles
> document that defined Capture.
> 
> "A group can be considered captured when one or more stakeholders are
> able to effectively control outcomes despite lack of agreement from other
> stakeholders who nominally should be able to drive consensus.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship