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

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

Rick, it isn't that registrars or registrars are evil.  It is that they
have a special constituency already.    How many times should the
registry/registrar interests vote?   The NCDNHC had several people
voting in our constituency that were doing so to protect various
registry or registar interests, and even people working as consultants
to ICANN.    I don't think this makes ICANN look good.  Maybe we should
just scrap the constituencies, and give everyone who wants one vote for
the DNSO.  If you really want everyone to be treated fairly, lets give
everyone exactly the same number of votes.    Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick H Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
To: "James Love" <love@cptech.org>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest


>
> Jamie,
>
> I work for many registrars and one one too. I also have several
domains
> that have nothing to do with my registrar business and I'd like to be
able
> to represent those interests too.
>
> Either we have to learn to cooperate or nothing will get done. I
support
> the at-large efforts and post often to the GA.
>
> I could not support any organization that removed individual
partipation
> even if one of the participants was working for a registry or
registrar.
> after all we aren't evil or something....
>
> -rick
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Love wrote:
>
> > 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 registry should vote in any
other
> > constituency.
> >
> >   Jamie
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> > To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "Ken Stubbs"
<kstubbs@digitel.net>
> > Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >
> >
> > > 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@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