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

[Harold Whiting <Harold@PeterWhiting.com>]

At 07:44 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
>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
>

IMO, ANYONE should be eligible for membership in the At Large constituency.
 We cannot exclude people from individual voting rights for arbitrary
reasons, including who they work for or what thier business is.  This is
akin to not allowing a US Government employee have personal voting rights
because of thier employment position, that is insane.  Those people live in
the country too, just as Registrars and thier employees also have personal
interests in the workings of the internet.

While we are free to disagree with whatever "position" others may take on
various issues, that is exactly what makes this a fair process - everyone
gets a vote.  As a businessman, Rick gets a vote in the Registrar's
Constituency as well but it needs to be pointed out that that
constituency's position on a topic is taken as a group, i.e. the
Registrar's Constituency as a whole states a position on the topic after
the members of that constituency vote.  Wouldn't the At Large Constituency
operate in much the same manner?  After all, it is not like we are each
individually are getting a "vote" at ICANN, it is only the constituency
itself that gets representation.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but it definitely seems wrong to be
excluding anyone for any reason, just as it would be wrong to exclude
people that live in countries that do not "conform" to some "standards"
that someone arbitrarily sets.

--HJW--

>----- 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@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

Harold Whiting
--
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