Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1204
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, May 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1204

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:09:59 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Individual Stakeholders Constituency

Friday, May 17, 2002, 1:57:49 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> 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

What Joe is advocating, as well as others who see a threat to their
ability to control ICANN if it was truly open to the entire internet
community, is a structure that allows public participation via ONE
single vehicle inside the process, that makes it easier for them to
control, manipulate, or discount.

In fact what needs to happen is for there to be public participation
in EVERY organ of ICANN, from the election of Board members to the
SO's to the Task Forces, to the Working Groups.

And this scares them, because then they cannot control it and they
find the ability to manipulate outcomes would be grossly impaired.

- -- 
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 14:13:19 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Friday, May 17, 2002, 2:11:52 PM, Gary Osbourne wrote:

> 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.

And to a point I agree with the precept that some "qualification" of
members should exist in some fashion.

Perhaps that could take the form of being a member of the GA discuss
list for 3 months or so, assuming that the exposure (and optional
participation) in the process would be sufficient to give them enough
understanding to be able to make informed conclusions.

It would also severely limit the ability of professional lobbyists
such as Mr Love to try to issue shop the GA.

- -- 
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 17:14:26 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

- ---- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
: 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

This was posted today by the CIRA.  Jamie

http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/69.html

2002/005/16
ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR DOT-CA GOVERNING BODY BEGINS TODAY: INTERNET USERS
ENCOURAGED TO ASK QUESTIONS TO CANDIDATES
Ottawa, May 16, 2002 - Today, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority
(CIRA) officially launched its second online election campaign for
candidates seeking a seat on the CIRA Board of Directors. During the
campaign CIRA's 140,000 members (holders of dot-ca domain names) and the
general public will have the opportunity to raise issues and ask questions
to candidates listed on the CIRA election ballot by visiting
www.cira.ca/bb2002/index.html.

"The CIRA Board has a great responsibilities with far-reaching powers. It
sets the policies guiding the development and operation of the dot-ca
Internet domain, Canada's Internet name-space. This election campaign gives
Canadian Internet users the opportunity to air ideas and ask questions in a
truly open and public forum," said Professor David G. Macneil of the
University of New Brunswick's Faculty of Computer Science, CIRA's Returning
Officer.

A total of eight candidates will be listed on the CIRA online elections
ballot. The CIRA Nominations Committee, appointed by the CIRA Board,
nominated six candidates. CIRA members nominated two candidates through an
online nominations process.

Voting by CIRA members will be held online between noon (12:00 EDT) June 7,
2002 and 8 pm (20:00 EDT) June 13, 2002. The results will be posted on the
CIRA website before June 20, 2002.

About CIRA
CIRA is the not-for-profit organization mandated to operate the dot-ca
top-level domain for all Canadians. It is responsible for setting policy and
managing the dot-ca domain database as well as registering domain names
through its network of certified registrars.

- -30-

Media Inquiries:
Gabriel Ahad, Director of Communications
613-237-0300 (ext. 235), [email-masked]

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

_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits

:

- --
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 14:43:10 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

At 02:13 PM 17/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>And to a point I agree with the precept that some
>"qualification" of members should exist in some fashion.

It seems Joe Sims also wants *informed* participation:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01285.html

So if you, I, Kent, and Joe can all agree on this,
surely consensus cannot be far behind. When does the
BoD get its first surprise quiz on BIND security flaws,
and how will those BoD members who fail be replaced? -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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:40:01 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Friday, May 17, 2002, 2:43:10 PM, Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 02:13 PM 17/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>>And to a point I agree with the precept that some
>>"qualification" of members should exist in some fashion.

> It seems Joe Sims also wants *informed* participation:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01285.html

> So if you, I, Kent, and Joe can all agree on this,
> surely consensus cannot be far behind. When does the
> BoD get its first surprise quiz on BIND security flaws,
> and how will those BoD members who fail be replaced? -g

Again, that is your opinion (not one that I share) that that level of
technical knowledge is required.

I do not agree with that, and I am CERTAIN there is no consensus to
support it.

I see no compelling reason to a requirement such as that.

There is a difference between REASONABLE and UNREASONABLE standards.

- -- 
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 23:43:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Individual Stakeholders Constituency

On Fri, 17 May 2002, at 14:09 [=GMT-0700], William X Walsh wrote:

> What Joe is advocating, as well as others who see a threat to their
> ability to control ICANN if it was truly open to the entire internet
> community, is a structure that allows public participation via ONE
> single vehicle inside the process, that makes it easier for them to
> control, manipulate, or discount.
>
> In fact what needs to happen is for there to be public participation
> in EVERY organ of ICANN, from the election of Board members to the
> SO's to the Task Forces, to the Working Groups.
>
> And this scares them, because then they cannot control it and they
> find the ability to manipulate outcomes would be grossly impaired.

May we go one step further? What we need it an organization separate from
ICANN, very willing to co-operate with(in) ICANN, but unwilling to be put
on side tracks time and again.

- --
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 15:30:05 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:11:52PM -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> >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?

Probably.  IP interests are remarkably organized and effective, and 
they wouldn't be that way if they were uninformed.

> 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 for voting in a US federal election don't say that
you have to be informed, either, but to vote in a US election you have
to either 1) go through a very arduous and lengthy process to become a
citizen, part of which includes being tested on you knowledge of US
governmental structures; or 2) be born a citizen and wait 18 years, 12
years of which usually involve instruction in US governmental structure. 

One of the major justifications for a public education system is to have
an informed electorate; the dangers of an uninformed electorate are
well-known.

> 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 has been, in my experience, at least one obvious attempt in prior
elections to "stuff the ballot", (or, as a friend put it "engage in an
exceptionally vigorous grass roots registration campaign").  In that
case the result wasn't affected by the attempt; the watchdogs decided it
wasn't worth invalidating the election over. 

[...]

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- 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: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:35:17 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

On 2002-05-17 11:10:14 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:

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

The idea certainly sounds interesting.

Here's one of the challenges such a constituency would have to 
solve, though: As is illustrated by the more powerful of the 
existing constituencies, it's enormously helpful if any 
participation in ICANN's and the DNSO's policymaking process is  
backed by the ability to lobby governmental structures which exist  
outside the ICANN framework, or by the ability to cause significant  
cost to suppliers.  Since individual stakeholders have, so far, not  
learned how to cause significant cost for suppliers in order to back 
up their demands, backing by lobbying groups is pretty much the only 
option which remains.

Thus, in order for an individual stakeholders' constituency to be  
successful in ICANN policymaking, you need two things: Enthusiastic  
participation (including by some of those who have left the GA in  
the past years, and by new participants), and backing by advocacy 
organizations.

As a corollary, such a constituency would need a way for advocacy  
groups to participate, to make a commitment to the constituency's  
goals, and to make a contribution to its costs - some kind of an  
organizational membership.  

Of course, looking at the other side of the coin, advocacy groups  
would have to accept that concept of membership, and would actually  
have to join.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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 19:40:23 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

Brett,
Great post, but I confine myself to one (long) comment on this part:-

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.

If you go to:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/acc_how.shtml, and use that as
a role model, you will see that twelve Governors could be appointed by the
USG to ensure that ICANN/ it's successor agency fulfills its obligations.
They are men and women with a wide range of experience and interests in
public service and the arts, business and industry. Among them are figures
that could be considered as National Governors for the five or six ICANN
territories. One Governor has special responsibility for the US Region. The
BBC has a track record dating back to your parents generation - in short, it
works. (ok, I'm biased, I worked for them fulltime for more than 10 years).
Bur please check it out.

All would be part-time non-executives. They would meet monthly and hold
ICANN managers to account for their performance against the agreed strategy
and objectives. The Governors ensure that ICANN is

1. directed and managed in the public interest and accountable to license
payers (aka domain name registrants) and Parliament (aka the USG or some
elected GAC body that is regarded as having global authority over the
internet)
2. complies with its Charter, Agreement and other regulations
3. complies with the law
4. maintains the high standards and values expected of the ICANN as the
internet's regulator.

There are many other checks and balances in place, but in a nutshell, ICANN
would be led by the Director-General, who is both chief executive and
editor-in-chief. The Governors appoint the Director-General and (with the
Director-General) the most senior management. A new management structure
places stronger emphasis on allowing the full raft of website content to
flourish, including non-profit and minority interests as well as commercial,
which all helps to reduce overheads. Operations are run by the directors of
gTLDs, ccTLDs, publishing and professional divisions and so on and....by the
chief executives of ICANN's commercial businesses (yes, we must make a
provision for a part of ICANN to develop into a commercially profitable
entity separate from the main ICANN). They report to the director-general
and together make up the Executive Committee. A less formal Leadership Group
meets to discuss and develop a clear vision for ICANN.

Please give the BBC a good hard look, because essentially, while we're all
scrambling to draft sections for "the dummies guide to running a public
interest organization running the internet". with a few minor adjustments,
the BBC has it all, more than you would ever need to solve current dilemmas.

The salient point is that in a public interest organization such as the BBC,
(and hopefully ICANN/ Newco), the supply side doesn't have a vote. It exists
by the simple laws of supply and demand. This would mean relegating the
supply side to a service contract with ICANN, to keep the services going
that people want to purchase, such as data escrow for individual
registrants, meanwhile getting rid of the unattractive parts, such as WLS
(if so determined). This sounds horrific to most stakeholders within the
ICANN process, so please, go look at the BBC then come back and show me the
supply side hasn't thrived - in fact, the BBC is the greatest benefactor of
the film and TV industries over the tough economic times. The simple fact is
that I, along with the rest if the users in this world, want the supply side
to survive and compete - that's where we get user choice. This is the
direction where we need to go, several lifetimes away from what is currently
on Philip Shepard's Radar screen.

Philip knows exactly what I'm talking about, he was born and raised on a BBC
diet.
James, I should post this to your new list "what replaces icann next" list,
but I wanted to answer Brett and not sure of cross posting rules there?

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:48:12 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Sims wrote:

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

  Well glad you did Joe.  At least in your comments below it appears
you are trying to be constructive this time.
(More comments/observations and thoughts below Joe's)

>
>
> 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).

  Indeed this is or appears to be true.  The problem arises Joe, is that these
and this effort have been done or tried before, but were not recognized
by the ICANN BOD or not excepted by the ICANN BOD.  In addition,
there are already several other At-Large efforts underway as I am sure
you know.  I would also point out that the DNSO GA is predominantly
for Domain name holders of one color or another and as part of the ICANN
Bylaws needs to remain so as a DNSO General Assembly ( GA ).

> 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.

  Yes.  BUt this does not go far enough.  Stakeholders/users should
also have a VOTE on policy issues that effect them, not just a voice
as Brett, Jonathan and myself pointed out...  This is what is required
to have a level playing field as to representation on the ICANN
BoD as well and to meet the requirements of the White Paper
and the MoU.  Hence as Jamie initiated a motion for rebid would
seem now to not only be advisable but perhaps necessary.

>  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,

  Unfortunately this is where you are seemingly poorly informed.
Global voting has been and is working on a fairly regular basis and
has been for quite a number of years.  On-line Global voting has also
been working for at least 8 years that I am aware of.

> 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?

  Good point here.  I must agree with you on this one Joe...

>  Isn't the real point that there
> needs to be a balance?

  Yes.  In favor of the largest group of stakeholders/users in order
to be representative and to insure that registries, registrars, ISP's
IP Registries, and ICANN itself understand that they are a
servant to the stakeholders as well as a small part of those
same stakeholders/users...

> 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.

  Very much agreed.  Unfortunately this is decidedly NOT what we have
sense ICANN's inception.  If fact we are facing registries and registrars
that do not honor their contracts and no enforcement or adequate
oversight by the ICANN Administrators or the DOC/NTIA...
This is therefore unexceptable and clearly shows, amongst other
already well documented and related/discussed/debated other
problems, why and how ICANN has thus far been a dismal
failure...  We the stakeholders/users are paying for performance
that we are decidedly NOT getting....

> 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.

  The constituent body's presently do not represent the vast majority
of the stakeholders/users.  Yet many policy decisions are being
made and implemented.

>
>
>
>
>   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

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 20:40:20 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Vote Status

John,
Rough calculation...don't quote me, but I have roughly 183 ballots.
For those who have not yet voted, please do so, let's make it a record
turnout!
Regards,
Joanna.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> Palmer
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:52 PM
> To: [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
>
>

- --
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 21:28:20 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: ISC (Re: [ga] NC BS)

> 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.
>
>

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Michael Collins was assassinated
and they're still fighting over there....analogies will get you every
time....:-)

Have a great weekend, back online Sunday or Monday.
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

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:06:12 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] an ISC

At 10:14 a.m. 17/05/2002 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>[bret]
> > are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
> > sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.
>[KC]
>It does, however, preclude decision making by majority rule, or any
>surrogate thereof.

So, what is the sample size that ICANN would be satisfied with?  400?
Among equal individuals, anything *but* majority rule would be minority 
hijacking.

Majority rule can be as simple as the regular (every 3 months?) 
ratification via membership vote of what the leadership is up to or as 
complex as referring every major decision to a membership vote.
Brent is right: by the fruits you recognize the tree.  The pretenders show 
their true interests in the long run.
<snip>

>Proposal:
>
>Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, etc) and
>clone it.

  An ISC would need an idependent and anonymous voting system, not a clone 
of the GA system. It would also need independent scrutineers.

>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,

No. The deadline for Charter approval should be a fixed one, like the 6 
months membership. No open -ended obligation that can be dragged out for 
another 3 years, while the concrete sets around our individual feet.

As for seeding it with the whole membership of the GA. (incl. those 
constituency members who are only subscribed to announce lists) , the 
Individuals  would start off with a whole lot of corporate dilution.

>and that the
>constituency dues can be paid.  Let the DNSO secretariate support it,
>at least for the time being.

A budget allocation of 2 years, fixed. Extendable thereafter.

>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 they cannot call for a vote any more? Or can they?

>but in my opinion there should not be any restrictions on
>membership in the ISC,

or on the old GA

>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.)

...which will guarantee a potential to hold them hostage in an IDNO style 
paralysis, especially when mailing lists are the sole means of 
self-organizing and charter-writing. (GA clone)

Your proposal contains positive elements  only if it is made in thoroughly 
good faith.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:52:36 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

At 02:57 p.m. 17/05/2002 +0200, 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".
>

Yes, this is my experience with the people who have seriously participated.
It will be easy to find out with a poll.

>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 ?
>

Philip, it is rather tiring to keep repeating the same arguments over 4 
years without being heard by you.
Neither the current "business constituency" nor the "non-coms" are 
representative  of typical Individuals' interests and opening them up to 
individuals is unlikely to change that:
one is captured by big corporates and the NCDNHC is terminally sabotaged.

Opening them up for a few token individuals would do nothing to solve the 
fundamental representational deficit.

For the same reason opening the IP constituency to individuals (as an 
individual Trade Mark owner  I should certainly have access to this 
"constituency") is not going to change anything there either.

The fact is that Individual Domain Name Holders can  have an interest in 
all three constituencies.

What individuals (and the DNSO!)  need is a one-person-one-vote 
Constituency of their own, as a recognized member of the DNSO and with 
voting representatives on the Names Council.
Sure, there could be SME representation in the BC,  but it is doubtful if 
it would  ever get any influence on BC policy.

>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.
>

What helps is to focus on the Individuals as stakeholder- *owners*.  The 
"user" part is something that consumer protection organizations can deal with.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:24:04 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Individual Stakeholders Constituency

At 11:43 p.m. 17/05/2002 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>May we go one step further? What we need it an organization separate from
>ICANN, very willing to co-operate with(in) ICANN, but unwilling to be put
>on side tracks time and again.

icannatlarge.com?

I though we were talking about salvaging the legitimacy of the DNSO.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:26:54 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

At 03:30 p.m. 17/05/2002 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>There has been, in my experience, at least one obvious attempt in prior
>elections to "stuff the ballot", (or, as a friend put it "engage in an
>exceptionally vigorous grass roots registration campaign").  In that
>case the result wasn't affected by the attempt; the watchdogs decided it
>wasn't worth invalidating the election over.

Interesting information. So if the outcome of the election had been 
different, the w-dogs might have yapped?

- --Joop

- --
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 19:01:44 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

At 03:30 PM 17/05/02 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>Probably.  IP interests are remarkably organized and
>effective, and they wouldn't be that way if they were
>uninformed.

The Boy Scouts, the Teamsters Union, the Yakuza,
are all remarkably organized and effective, why
don't they have BoD seats? Any of those interests
would know as much about the technical security
and stability of the internet as IP lobbyists.

Is it because, as Jonathan Cohen said at Accra:
"We're in the White Paper. End of story."
IOW, we were here first so we get to vote...and
now you don't, because you're not informed enough.

>The existing rules for voting in a US federal election don't say that
>you have to be informed, either, but to vote in a US election you have
>to either 1) go through a very arduous and lengthy process to become a
>citizen, part of which includes being tested on you knowledge of US
>governmental structures; or 2) be born a citizen and wait 18 years, 12
>years of which usually involve instruction in US governmental structure.

I've been online over 18 years. How many IP lobbyists
can say that? But I can't vote even in the GA unless
I understand some (possibly deliberately) obscure rules?

Aren't you rather ethnocentric? How is it that democracy
works elsewhere in the world where there isn't such
instruction (Canada, for a nearby example)? How is it
that countries around the world first come to embrace
democracy without 12 years of prior instruction? How
is it that after all that the US does to ensure informed
voters, the election of the US leader comes down to
counting (or not) hanging chad? It was instructive for
the rest of the world to watch the US electorate become
informed about WaterGate, Iran-Contra, the Oral Office...

>One of the major justifications for a public education system is to have
>an informed electorate; the dangers of an uninformed electorate are
>well-known.

You're still using the terms informed and uninformed
without definition. Now you add unspecified well-known
dangers. The worries that the rabble is at the gates
waving ballots that would make John Zuccarini the next
BoD chair are far overblown. Dan Parisi didn't get
enough endorsements to run for election. The at large
electorate instead elected Karl, with Barbara the
first runner up. It would seem a supposedly uninformed
electorate is a danger only to bad actors and entrenched
vested interests, not democracy.

>There has been, in my experience, at least one obvious attempt in prior
>elections to "stuff the ballot", (or, as a friend put it "engage in an
>exceptionally vigorous grass roots registration campaign").  In that
>case the result wasn't affected by the attempt; the watchdogs decided it
>wasn't worth invalidating the election over.

You cannot imagine how chilling it is to learn
that you are in a position to decide whether my
vote constitutes the equivalent of hanging chad. -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 #1204
*************************