Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.

1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
2. No one who works for a registrar or registrar should vote in any other
constituency.

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest


> Ken,
>
> If you insist that all the tough questions are taken offline and dealt
with
> in private, then we might as well all pack up.
>
> No doubt you will agree that an At Large Director needs to participate in
> order to communicate with their electorate. That deals with Karl's
> membership.
>
> It was not my intention to single out anybody, or to "intimidate" you, but
> Marilyn brought the questions upon herself. I have the highest regard for
> her professional acumen and know full well she anticipated this line of
> questioning, whether from me, or Danny, whether on or offlist, and IMHO,
> these kinds of issues should be aired in public, not least because the At
> Large is intended to advocate the public interest and it is important not
to
> beg the question "who is defining the public interest?", (largely the
point
> raised by Esther a few days ago on the ALSC forum list).
>
> A person who is a paid advocate for a special interest group cannot work
> both sides of the fence in my personal opinion, whether or not they are a
> domain name registrant or not. While the support is certainly welcome,
isn't
> it better for them to participate in the At Large debate as an advocate of
> their special interest group, transparently, perhaps even joining a
> "provider" class of membership that would have special value to the
> organization. In this way, we would have no diffulty evaluating the weight
> of contributions and give them the merit they deserve, as opposed to
giving
> ammunition to those who would say Marilyn was lobbying for AT & T in a
> subversive fashion, and confusing those who are not familiar with her
> position. It seems to me this would be a workeable relationship to
engender
> the trust we so badly need if all are amenable.
>
> I apologize for raising this issue on the GA list, and would not have done
> so had the ALSC forum not suddenly disappeared without advance notice,
(due
> to some flaw in the Registrar transfer process perhaps).
>
> In addition to the above, I would also mention that there is no provision
on
> the website for corporate pledges, which is missing an opportunity to
raise,
> say, $100,000 in matching funds for staff support and resources, that a
> separate category of membership would allow to occur, with different
levels
> of status. Just a thought that needs fleshing out.
>
> I am mindful to avoid unecessary procedural clutter, so let's to cut to
the
> chase. It is my suggestion to agree one ground rule. While the DNSO
> continues to operate as currently structured, no officers of the DNSO
shall
> be eligible to stand for office in the At Large.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:03 AM
> > To: Joanna Lane
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org; Joop Teernstra
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >
> >
> > joann & others...
> >
> > i would hope that as an individual i would be able to participate in the
> > icann-at-large without any concern of being "intimidated" into not
> > participating .
> >
> > correspondence of this sort is not constructive. if you have concerns
> > joanna, i personally feel  you should take them DIRECTLY to
> > Marilyn instead
> > of trying to make a public 'thing" out of it.
> >
> > this is not a good way to start out here.. many of us work for companies
> > which may already be participating in some way in one or another
> > constituancy or already be part of a specific "interest group" (i
believe
> > that Karl Auerbach has some financial relationship with Cisco and no one
> > questions his right to participate)
> >
> > suggest you "back it down a notch or two"  here
> >
> > regards
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> > To: <mcade@att.com>
> > Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>;
> > <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:37 AM
> > Subject: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >
> >
> > > (I am posting this to the GA because the ALSC forum list has
> > been killed.)
> > >
> > > Dear Marilyn,
> > >
> > > I notice you have just signed up as an individual member and domain
name
> > > holder of the new At Large Members Organization at
> > > http://www.icannatlarge.com. In what capacity may I ask?
> > >
> > > As you know, the At Large Organization is being set up
> > primarily to lobby
> > > ICANN for representation of those who are currently not able to
> > participate
> > > in the process through membership of other groups, specifically
> > individual
> > > domain name registrants, users and the public in general.
> > >
> > > Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are a professional
Internet
> > and
> > > Government lobbyist in fulltime employ with AT&T, a Telco. In that
> > capacity
> > > you are a member of the DNSO Business Constituency and represent that
> > group
> > > (some 33 Businesses) on the Names Council. You Chair two of the
> > NC's Task
> > > Forces, namely the Transfer Task Force and the Whois Task
> > Force, and will
> > be
> > > speaking on behalf of both of those groups (representing the
> > views of all
> > 7
> > > constituencies) at the forthcoming Names Council Meeting in Accra
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00210.html.
Furthermore,
> > you
> > > have some unspecified involvement with the IDN Task Force
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00036.html which still
> > leaves
> > > time for you to be an active member of the DNSO General Assembly. This
> > > amounts to your representing every single member of each constituency
of
> > the
> > > DNSO at one time or another in the current process.
> > >
> > > Now, are we to understand that in addition to this, you now
> > seek for your
> > > voice to be heard in the formation of this new bottom-up
> > organization? If
> > > so, would this be on a level playing field with every other
individual,
> > > including the possibility of standing for election as an
> > officer of the At
> > > Large? Or are we to understand that you have joined simply to make a
(no
> > > doubt generous) pledge on behalf of AT & T, with no desire to
> > expand your
> > > role into areas such as seeking election as a representative of At
Large
> > > Members within the ICANN process?
> > >
> > > Thank you for the clarification.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html