Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1203
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 17 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1203

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:57:47 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
: Perhaps because the issue hadn't come up before.  Announcements to
: slashdot make the possibility of ballot stuffing by large numbers of
: of uninformed voters look a whole lot more serious.

  Kent, I would have loved to see a big splash on slashdot regarding the
vote..... However, it did *not* happen.  There was only a backpage post,
that generated all of 6 comments (which I have mentioned on several
occasions).   In any case, slashdot readers as a group are hardly uninformed
on DNS issues, and Slashdot has been the source of many stories about ICANN
over the past few years, including several on the Lynn proposal, which was
ripped on Slashdot, as you know.

   The reason there were new registrations to vote in the GA is that for the
first time, the GA was going to hold a vote that was mildly controversial in
terms of substance.  It had never happened before.  Lots of old hands who
had not bothered to register to vote, registered.  It should happen more
often.   And there should be outreach to encourage people to vote in these
matters.   Posting notices about votes in public fora (with pointers to GA
list discussions)  are not ballot stuffing, This is encouraging people who
*are* stakeholders to participate.

    The GA votes are not binding, they are a place, currently the only
place, where there can be popular participation in ICANN related decision
making.  Look at the regular constitituencies.  We have consultants to
Neustar (and other registrar/registry groups) voting in the NCC, as if they
represent non-commercial domain name holders.    That is permitted.   Do you
think that is ok?

  Jamie

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

:

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:00:07 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS - Incorporating Stakeholders/users- Bah!

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    Joop, thank you for your comments. Are you saying that the majority
> of individuals currently wishing to be engaged in ICANN and outside of
> the constituency structure are not consumers but:
>
> "producers of content, directly related to their Domain" ...with a
> subsequent "highly personal interest in a NAME, an identifier of
> themselves or their on-line business".

  No that is not how I read what Joop was saying at all.  In fact, some,
if
not many, Stakeholders/users are in multiple categories at the same
time.

>
>
> In other words such individuals are typically unincorporated
> businesses (profit or not for profit), sharing a lot of common
> interest with the business constituency or non-comms, but are today
> unable to join the BC or non-coms because they choose to trade as
> individuals rather than be incorporated as SMEs or organisations ?

  Yes to a degree.  OR are not allowed due to some arcane rules such as
the
BC and the IP constituency's have to block membership as has been a
lengthy subject area on this GA forum in the recent past...

>
>
> If yes this perspective, and therefore the way we incorporate these
> stakeholders, is important. What helps is to differentiate the
> interests of individuals as providers from individuals as users.

  Who's we?  Got a mouse in your pocket?  >;)  No, not "The way WE
incorporate
these stakeholders", but how THEY WISH to be incorporated or participate

is what is important!  >;)

>
>
> Philip
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:14:05 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:33:43AM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> Philip, I think the view expressed below is mistaken. Let me explain why.
[...]
> 
> We've had difficulty finding a voice for individual registrants because of
> the concern that the registrants who choose to participate in ICANN are not
> sufficiently "representative" of the millions of registrants/end-users
> around the world. This should be of no greater concern than whether the B&C
> "represents" the world's business users or, indeed, whether even a fairly
> homogeneous group like ICANN-accredited registrars are "represented" by that
> subset of registrars that choose to participate in ICANN's registrar
> constituency. The better question is whether the opinions expressed by those
> who choose to participate in ICANN are sufficiently characteristic of the
> concerns of the larger community such that ICANN and its constituent bodies
> are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
> sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.

It does, however, preclude decision making by majority rule, or any 
surrogate thereof.  

> Third, as to the view that registrants will be best represented
> federation-style by consumer-interest organizations, that's not a
> requirement we place on any other group within ICANN. In the B&C, you
> represent an association, but Marilyn and I represent individual companies.
> You'll see that the same is true in the ISPC, IPC and NCDNHC.

Companies are still organizations.

> Any reform model that doesn't allow individual domain name registrants to be
> heard *and represented* on an equal basis with businesses, intellectual
> property owners, ISPs, registries and registrars is not viable in the long
> term. 

Proposal:

Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, etc) and
clone it.  Name it the "individual stakeholders constituency" (ISC), and
seed it with the "membership" of the GA.  Give it 6 months to a year to
come up with a charter approved by ICANN, and give it 3 votes on the
Names Council when (if) that charter gets approved, and that the 
constituency dues can be paid.  Let the DNSO secretariate support it, 
at least for the time being.

The current GA can continue as it was originally designe: a
cross-constituency forum; people can join or drop from the ISC as they
see fit, but in my opinion there should not be any restrictions on
membership in the ISC, other than that the member be able to establish
that they are a real human being, and that they pay dues as required. 
(In particular, participation in another constituency in any capacity
should not be a restriction on participation in the ISC in any 
capacity, except that a person can only be elected to the NC once.)

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:25:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS - Individual Stakeholders/users a voice and a vote!

Bret and all assembly members,

  Yes indeed the view that Phillip expressed for the NC is
very mistaken and does not represent the wishes or
desires of the DNSO GA or the consensus of stakeholders/users
in any sense.  INEGroup members voted on this over 2 years
ago.  It was one of three issues that received a unanimous
vote of those voting that ANY AND ALL stakeholders/users
have an EQUAL footing or level of participation, and that any
and ALL interested parties or stakeholders have a right to
a voice and a VOTE.

  As to Bret's last comment:  Indeed not only Domain Name registrants
but any Stakeholder/USER in any reform model that doesn't allow
those individuals to be heard *and represented with a vote - one stakeholder
one vote* on an equal basis with businesses, intellectual property owners,
ISPs, registries and registrars is not only not viable in the long term, but
not viable presently as we have clearly seen, and not viable in the short
term either...

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Philip, I think the view expressed below is mistaken. Let me explain why.
>
> First and foremost, the interests of individual registrants are not merely
> "indirectly" impacted by ICANN policies. They are directly impacted. From
> the UDRP to the transfer policy to the deletion grace period to the waiting
> list service, practically every issue under discussion in the DNSO
> *directly* impacts a domain name registrant's use of his or her domain name.
>
> Second, I would go farther, much farther, than to say that the collective
> interests of individual domain name registrants are "valid." Taken in the
> aggregate, no stakeholder is more important than the end users of the
> resources under ICANN's management. If an ICANN policy benefits registries
> and registrars, but is detrimental to registrants and other end-users, then
> ICANN has failed. Note well that the converse is not true.
>
> We've had difficulty finding a voice for individual registrants because of
> the concern that the registrants who choose to participate in ICANN are not
> sufficiently "representative" of the millions of registrants/end-users
> around the world. This should be of no greater concern than whether the B&C
> "represents" the world's business users or, indeed, whether even a fairly
> homogeneous group like ICANN-accredited registrars are "represented" by that
> subset of registrars that choose to participate in ICANN's registrar
> constituency. The better question is whether the opinions expressed by those
> who choose to participate in ICANN are sufficiently characteristic of the
> concerns of the larger community such that ICANN and its constituent bodies
> are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
> sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.
>
> Third, as to the view that registrants will be best represented
> federation-style by consumer-interest organizations, that's not a
> requirement we place on any other group within ICANN. In the B&C, you
> represent an association, but Marilyn and I represent individual companies.
> You'll see that the same is true in the ISPC, IPC and NCDNHC.
>
> Any reform model that doesn't allow individual domain name registrants to be
> heard *and represented* on an equal basis with businesses, intellectual
> property owners, ISPs, registries and registrars is not viable in the long
> term.
>
>    -- Bret
>
> Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly impacted by
> > ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the same sense ? I do
> > not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.  In the non-ICANN
> > world the voice of consumers in policy development is typically heard via
> > consumer organisations. Such organisations exist at national and regional (eg
> > EU) level. This is the format of involvement of registrants as consumers that
> > the NC envisages in recommendation 19.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:52:27 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Vote Status 

Could the Secretariat please post a count of how many ballots have been
returned?

Thanks

- ----
AGN Domain Name Services : http://www.adns.net
Censorship-Free GA list : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/ga

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:10:14 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

This is a good idea. I would support this.

    -- Bret

Kent Crispin wrote:
> Proposal:
> 
> Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, etc) and
> clone it.  Name it the "individual stakeholders constituency" (ISC), and
> seed it with the "membership" of the GA.  Give it 6 months to a year to
> come up with a charter approved by ICANN, and give it 3 votes on the
> Names Council when (if) that charter gets approved, and that the
> constituency dues can be paid.  Let the DNSO secretariate support it,
> at least for the time being.
> 
> The current GA can continue as it was originally designe: a
> cross-constituency forum; people can join or drop from the ISC as they
> see fit, but in my opinion there should not be any restrictions on
> membership in the ISC, other than that the member be able to establish
> that they are a real human being, and that they pay dues as required.
> (In particular, participation in another constituency in any capacity
> should not be a restriction on participation in the ISC in any
> capacity, except that a person can only be elected to the NC once.)

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:12:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Friday, May 17, 2002, 5:57:05 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Joop, thank you for your comments. Are you saying that the majority
> of individuals currently wishing to be engaged in ICANN and outside
> of the constituency structure are not consumers but:

I'm saying it doesn't matter.

To use your analogy, if someone has a PC, and an interest in the
process, they are a stakeholder, and should be permitted to
participate without having to justify their participation.  If your
Aunt Agatha doesn't have a PC with an internet connection, then
obviously she isn't a stakeholder, but if she gets a PC and an
internet connection, then she would be effected by the decisions made,
directly or indirectly, and if she was interested, by all means she
should be welcomed to participate.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:32:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: ISC (Re: [ga] NC BS)

On Fri, 17 May 2002, at 10:14 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:33:43AM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Proposal:
>
> Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, etc) and
> clone it.  Name it the "individual stakeholders constituency" (ISC), and
> seed it with the "membership" of the GA.  Give it 6 months to a year to
> come up with a charter approved by ICANN, and give it 3 votes on the
> Names Council when (if) that charter gets approved, and that the
> constituency dues can be paid.

And how much would these dues be? Would it not be more clever for those
interested as mere users to get a voice in DNS policy, and willing to pay
some membership fee, to found an organization separate from ICANN?
Something really bottom up. It could then offer itself to take on the
AtLarge role, e.g. organizing an election for the 9 board seats. And if
ICANN refuses to accept, talk, negotiate, compromise, well, this new
organization could always do the same as the elected Irish representatives
did nearly a hundred years ago. Most of Ireland is free now, for a long
time. They did not get all they wanted, but most of it. Much more than
when they had remained cerfs.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:40:27 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ISC proposal by Kent Crispin

- --=======5AF974BA=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20D63FAE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I second that proposal by Kent and I ask the Chair to open a debate towards 
a vote.
I ask Chuck, Jeff Neuman, Peter de Blanc if they would donate 1 cent per DN 
per annum to fund the ISC.
jfc

On 19:14 17/05/02, Kent Crispin said:
>Proposal:
>Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, etc) and
>clone it.  Name it the "individual stakeholders constituency" (ISC), and
>seed it with the "membership" of the GA.  Give it 6 months to a year to
>come up with a charter approved by ICANN, and give it 3 votes on the
>Names Council when (if) that charter gets approved, and that the
>constituency dues can be paid.  Let the DNSO secretariate support it,
>at least for the time being.
>
>The current GA can continue as it was originally designed: a
>cross-constituency forum; people can join or drop from the ISC as they
>see fit, but in my opinion there should not be any restrictions on
>membership in the ISC, other than that the member be able to establish
>that they are a real human being, and that they pay dues as required.
>(In particular, participation in another constituency in any capacity
>should not be a restriction on participation in the ISC in any
>capacity, except that a person can only be elected to the NC once.)

- --=======5AF974BA=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20D63FAE
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======5AF974BA=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:36:36 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

[email-masked] (Fri 05/17/02 at 11:10 AM -0700):

> This is a good idea. I would support this.

mirabile dictu, i would too, except that:

> > Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, etc) and
> > clone it.  Name it the "individual stakeholders constituency" (ISC), and
> > seed it with the "membership" of the GA.  Give it 6 months to a year to
> > come up with a charter approved by ICANN, and give it 3 votes on the
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

this is necessary, but we know what would happen: Certain People known
for provocation and disruption would bedevil discussion, ICANN's staff 
would kibbitz it by imposing arbitrarily high criteria (impossibly ex-
pensive authentication etc), and, once the deadline is past, the whole
thing will have been proclaimed a failure.

change 'approved by ICANN' to 'approved by the SOs' or maybe even 'ap-
proved by the NC,' and the result might be different.

> > Names Council when (if) that charter gets approved, and that the
> > constituency dues can be paid.  

we'd need some scope on what dues are expected to cover.

> >                                Let the DNSO secretariate support it,
> > at least for the time being.

gong. let ICANN staff commit an amount in excess of the $450K they so
happily committed to 'studying' the ALM.

cheers,
t
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ISC

- --- Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> They did not get all they wanted, but most of
> it. Much more than
> when they had remained cerfs.

I don't know...  I think many "mere users" would be
happy with the voice provided by being a cerf....  

Vinton G., that is.

Sorry, couldn't resist... :)

- -Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:54:32 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Bushwhacked by the registries and registrars

- --=======16071941=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20D63FAE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

French law forbids to link a tax to an expense, even if they are exceptions 
(but needing a law).
IMHO it would be the best way to hurt no contributor as it would be a 
common rule.
jfc

On 04:11 17/05/02, Joanna Lane said:

>Danny Younger wrote:
> > Here in the US, the Internal Revenue Service collects funds from the
> > "stakeholders" (citizens) and yet the IRS does not have any say
> > in how those
> > funds are to be allocated. <snip>
>
>Excellent point. And not only the IRS in America, also in Europe and
>elsewhere. But this actually points to the enforcement issue. Because the
>IRS does not set the taxes, it simply acts as an enforcement agency for
>those who set the taxes (elected representatives of government), then
>perhaps we should be thinking about splitting these functions in the context
>of internet regulation also. If there was an enforcing agency, independent
>of ICANN, (or its successor) would that solve some of the problems?
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======16071941=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20D63FAE
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======16071941=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:51:32 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS - Selective Censorship Raises it's ugly head again!

- --=======55451253=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20D63FAE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> > It's a plot Jeff - you missed the secret GA meeting in Accra where we
> > decided to engage in a calculated campaign designed to discredit the
> > INEGGroup, its members, directors and customers as well as Santa Claus and
> > the Easter Bunny

Dear Ross,
you should be ashamed of yourself. The GA is supposed to be a transparency 
model. Holding a secret meeting is another blur on the GA shield. When 
people will trace the roots of the GA suicide in voting Jamie's motion they 
will say "the Accra secret Meeting, reported by Ross Rader" and your name 
will be for ever doomed into infamy for havnig disclosed it...
jfc

- --=======55451253=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20D63FAE
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======55451253=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:06:56 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

For obvious reasons, I hesitate to jump into this debate, but what the heck
- -- I offer, as should be obvious, personal views only.

What Kent has proposed and Bret has endorsed is simply a varient on what
Esther and Denise and others are trying to do:  create some structured way
to organize and present input from individual users (whether domain name
holders or not).  On this point, I agree with Jamie Love and Bret that all
Internet users that are interested in doing so should be able to
participate and make their views known in ICANN.  The debate has not been
over this point, but over what kind of mechanisms are acceptable or
workable, with the latter incorporating notions of informed participation
as well as the pure logistics of the mechanism.  In my view, global on-line
voting is not workable today, so it does not pass the test; whether it will
be workable at some point in the future is unknown, but if that ever
happened, it would at least be eligible for consideration as one of the
alternative mechanisms.  There are undoubtedly other mechanisms, however,
that would pass both hurdles today, and the productive focus of those
interested in this area would best be aimed at creating those mechanisms,
and showing that they pass the workability hurdle.  When and if that
happens, there should be no objection to including that mechanism within
the ICANN structure.

Having said this, some of Bret's earlier postings do not make sense to me.

 If an ICANN policy benefits registries                                                   
 and registrars, but is detrimental to registrants and other end-users, then              
 ICANN has failed. Note well that the converse is not true.                               

Bret, do you really think that the converse is not true?  How could
registrants and other end-users be served if there were not sufficient and
functional registries and registrars?  Isn't the real point that there
needs to be a balance?  I even think I agree with your point that no
interests are more important than those of end users, and that registrars
and registries are servants of those interests, but that still leaves a
question of how those end user interests are best served.  My personal view
is that an environment that provides relatively low-cost, relatively
efficient and highly stable and dependable resolution services best serves
those end users, and that obviously means that we have to have productive
registries and registrars to make that happen.  Again, we could debate
exactly how to best get to that goal, but I don't really see how you could
argue it is not the right goal.

 The better question is whether the opinions expressed by those                           
 who choose to participate in ICANN are sufficiently characteristic of the                
 concerns of the larger community such that ICANN and its constituent bodies              
 are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample                 
 sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.                           

  I agree with the first point, and think that is in fact the crux of the
debate.  There is, as best I can tell, significant disagreement over
whether "the opinions expressed by those who choose to participate in ICANN
are sufficiently characteristic fo the concerns of the larger community."
I also suspect that this is what is driving various suggestions that
consumer or enduser participation would be more effective (and  potentially
more likely to be representative) if it came through well-established
consumer organizations.  This assumption may or may not be true, and it
does not necessarily answer the argument that individuals ought to be able
to participate as individuals, but it does point out why Bret's second
point is not necessarily true -- or at least why I don't think it really
deals with the point.  Small relative sample sizes of the sort we are
talking about here -- which are clearly not representative of the great
mass of end users -- does raise very serious questions about whether ICANN
would be making informed choices if it acted on the views of that very
small sample -- at least if you believe that serving the best interests of
the mass of disinterested end users, not just the interests of the small
group that actually participates, is the goal.

Finally, let me say that on the question of whether it is "appropriate" for
the GA to have a vote on Jamie's motion, I'm on his side.  This is not to
say that it is useful, or that it will be influential, or that it even fits
within the technical legal "power" of the GA; those are all questions on
which there could be different opinions.  But the GA is supposed to be a
place for debate by anyone that wants to join in the discussion; it has not
to date (whether it should have is another matter) had that debate much
organized, focused, or limited, so the debates have not had that much
influence.  This is likely to have the same result, but if the list
participants (or many of them)  want to make a statement on some issue by
holding a straw poll, go to it.  The value of that statement to most
outside observers will be determined by its inherent logic, and by the
surrounding circumstances that speak to whether it is an opinion that
should carry some weight.  (See above).   I sympathize with Thomas and
Alexander's efforts to try to push for some focus in the GA on the issues
that are actually being debated, and on which reasoned views from the GA
might have some impact, but if the participants on the list want to have a
vote on something else that is not being discussed elsewhere,
notwithstanding the very considerable risk that the result is not likely to
have any impact regardless of the outcome, it seems to me that is their
right.

Joe Sims

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:23:06 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS - Selective Censorship Raises it's ugly head  again!

> you should be ashamed of yourself. The GA is supposed to be a transparency
> model. Holding a secret meeting is another blur on the GA shield. When
> people will trace the roots of the GA suicide in voting Jamie's motion
they
> will say "the Accra secret Meeting, reported by Ross Rader" and your name
> will be for ever doomed into infamy for havnig disclosed it...

The art of life is to show your hand. There is no diplomacy like candor. You
may lose by it now and then, but it will be a loss well gained if you do.
Nothing is so boring as having to keep up a deception.
E. V. Lucas
;) Happy friday list...have a good weekend.

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:57:49 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Individual Stakeholders Constituency

Joe, Thanks for jumping in. A couple of points of clarification.

Joe Sims wrote:
> What Kent has proposed and Bret has endorsed is simply a varient on what
> Esther and Denise and others are trying to do:  create some structured way
> to organize and present input from individual users (whether domain name
> holders or not). 

The proposal Kent made and the one I endorsed was for a reform within the
DNSO structure or whatever replaces the DNSO. I don't view it as a
substitute for the At Large and what Denise is working on. They may be
complementary. I make a distinction between (a) online voting for At Large
Directors (which I still think is a good idea, but I accept that I've lost
that argument for the time being) and (b) representation of individual
domain name registrants (not "users" generally) in domain name policy.
Whatever happens with Denise's efforts, giving equal weight to domain name
registrants within whatever subsidiary policy structures comes to exist
around DNS policy makes sense too.
 
> Having said this, some of Bret's earlier postings do not make sense to me.
>  
>> If an ICANN policy benefits registries and registrars, but is detrimental
>> to registrants and other end-users, then ICANN has failed. Note well that
>> the converse is not true.
>
> Bret, do you really think that the converse is not true?  How could
> registrants and other end-users be served if there were not sufficient and
> functional registries and registrars?

A policy that impacted registries and registrars to such an extent that
registrants were also hurt really wouldn't help registrants at the end of
the day. I wouldn't put such policies into the category I described. Yes, on
most things, there needs to be balance. Caps on registry fees, for example,
have no beneficial effect on registries but that's not a reason not to have
them. 

>                                        Isn't the real point that there
> needs to be a balance?  I even think I agree with your point that no
> interests are more important than those of end users, and that registrars
> and registries are servants of those interests, but that still leaves a
> question of how those end user interests are best served.  My personal view
> is that an environment that provides relatively low-cost, relatively
> efficient and highly stable and dependable resolution services best serves
> those end users, and that obviously means that we have to have productive
> registries and registrars to make that happen.  Again, we could debate
> exactly how to best get to that goal, but I don't really see how you could
> argue it is not the right goal.
> 
> 
>> The better question is whether the opinions expressed by those
>> who choose to participate in ICANN are sufficiently characteristic of the
>> concerns of the larger community such that ICANN and its constituent bodies
>> are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
>> sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.

I wouldn't disagree that it would be reasonable for the ICANN Board to, say,
give greater weight to an opinion expressed by the International Chamber of
Commerce than to a contrary view expressed by an individual business. At the
same time, it would also be reasonable for the Board to conclude that a
well-documented, constructive opinion of an individual small business is
characteristic of the views of other small businesses, even though it is a
single contribution and other small businesses have elected not to show up
and make their opinions known.

Giving individual domain name registrants the ability to participate in the
DNSO's Names Council though (or the evolved gTLD policy body) might serve to
ensure that the unique interests of this class of individuals is given
greater weight in deliberations and at a point in the deliberations where
their input could make a difference.

   -- Bret

> I agree with the first point, and think that is in fact the crux of the
> debate.  There is, as best I can tell, significant disagreement over
> whether "the opinions expressed by those who choose to participate in ICANN
> are sufficiently characteristic fo the concerns of the larger community."
> I also suspect that this is what is driving various suggestions that
> consumer or enduser participation would be more effective (and  potentially
> more likely to be representative) if it came through well-established
> consumer organizations.  This assumption may or may not be true, and it
> does not necessarily answer the argument that individuals ought to be able
> to participate as individuals, but it does point out why Bret's second
> point is not necessarily true -- or at least why I don't think it really
> deals with the point.  Small relative sample sizes of the sort we are
> talking about here -- which are clearly not representative of the great
> mass of end users -- does raise very serious questions about whether ICANN
> would be making informed choices if it acted on the views of that very
> small sample -- at least if you believe that serving the best interests of
> the mass of disinterested end users, not just the interests of the small
> group that actually participates, is the goal.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:11:52 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

At 09:15 AM 17/05/02 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:41:03AM -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> >
> > If that wasn't the case, why was I, and I
> > know I'm not the only one in this situation,
> > allowed to register?
>
>Perhaps because the issue hadn't come up before.

Why hadn't the issue come up before? You are a
long time, and apparently present, member of the
Watchdog Committee:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html

In two years no-one noticed that individuals such as
I (and I know I'm not the only one), who otherwise
don't fit the recently claimed criteria for voting,
were in fact voting on a regular basis? Some watchdogs.

>Announcements to slashdot make the possibility of
>ballot stuffing by large numbers of of uninformed
>voters look a whole lot more serious.

So /.ers are less informed about ICANN matters than
whom, for example? Intellectual property interests?

You are allowed to care if one, or the other, are
uninformed voters, as am I, but you are not allowed
under the rules to deny them the right to vote for
merely being uninformed. Nor are you allowed under
the rules to screen membership based on one's level
of being *informed* The existing rules do not state
that only *informed* persons may be members.

The existing rules also do not state that only
*informed* persons should be made aware of the
opportunity to become GA members. In fact the
rules are completely silent on what constitutes
an *uninformed* person. The rules also don't give
watchdogs, or anyone else, the responsibility, or
the right, to make such a determination.

As you seem to be a watchdog of the voting process,
perhaps you could inform us of any prior attempts,
or successes, at GA ballot stuffing. If there aren't
any, why are you attempting to address a problem
that does not exist? If there were such, what, if
any, attempts were made to address the problem?

>There are addresses subscribed to the lists for
>other purposes than voting (archiving, press, etc).

And under the existing rules apparently they can
vote unless someone challenges whether they are
persons.

>Many people travel extensively, and handle it.

I'm glad to hear it. I like happy stories.
Hopefully someone else can better handle
answering my questions. Some can also handle
wearing numerous hats up, down, and across the
ICANN pantheon. Others cannot, but would like to
at least be able to try to handle the opportunity
to vote. You apparently, from another post of
yours to the GA today:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01266.html
would rather they remain uninformed:

At 07:37 AM 17/05/02 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:09:48AM -0400, James Love wrote:

 >> If a subscription to a GA list (discuss or announce) *or*
 >> membership in an official DNSO constituency,  is a
 >> requirement for the voter registry, the voter registry
 >> page should probably explain this to people who want to
 >> vote.

 > That would only serve people who had no experience in
 > ICANN at all, which would only play to ballot stuffers.

Those who have a valid interest in ICANN and wish to vote
will always be able to negotiate the maze, whereas those
intent on ballot stuffing somehow will never be able to
make it through, is that how it is supposed to work?

So the method and requirements for GA voting are made
as obtuse as possible, but that is a feature, not a bug?
What ever happened to openness and transparency? Perhaps
the watchdog ate it.

>And the number of messages to the announce list
>is in fact rather small.

So if I access the GA list via its web archives
from all manner of strange locales over the past
two years on a quite consistent basis, as I have,
and if I remotely take part in ICANN meetings (and
I doubt there are many, GA members or not, who can
match or exceed my record of such attendance) for
just two examples, I am considered as uninformed.

OTOH, if I only subscribe to a low volume announce
list, and as some of my travelling takes me to places
yet unwired, I sometimes only read them when they are
stale dated, I am considered informed.

Not that *informed* or *uninformed* appear anywhere
in the rules of membership, but just to be clear on
your logic, perhaps you could define your terms. -g

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1203
*************************