[CWG-Stewardship] Principles: Capture

[Alan Greenberg]

Milton, I agree that my one liner does not capture all implications 
of the word. I was asked to draft a footnote and perhaps we need 
something with far more detail than that. There are indeed many ways 
that capture can be effected.

Maybe you want to take a stab at it?

Alan

At 06/01/2015 03:44 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>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