<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
Dear Bill,
You cannot ask ALSC people to contradict themselves. You cannot ask Joop
Teernstra not to consider registrants firsts. You cannot ask Mike Roberts
to disregard if people bring money or not.
Pindar Wang, Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, etc.. are people we strongly
opposed for very good reasons and for a long while. Because - among
others - they created the problem with the mission creep, creating the
ALSC and starting calling the Govs in. We supported a lot Joop Teernstra
endeavors, but not his approach.
Esther and Pindar belong to the ALSC which defend positions they do not
disapprove and we formally disapprove. We are bother objected by the BoD
and Stuart, this make them temporary allies, but differences remains
because their objectives are not ours. This may change but let not
confuse early enthusiasm and objective interest. Let be grown boys,
otherwise, BoD and Staff will be quick at considering this as a
manipulation.
IMHO @large are first real people. And real people are in a country, with
a real NIC, with a real Gov, with real Media, with real consumer
organizations, with a real culture. And this carries much more weight
than Stuart's and BoD's unrealistic plans or uncertainty.
We should certainly pragmatically support our today bed fellows.
They want to be accepted back by the ICANN which dropped them out.
We should remember we want ultimately to commonly own the ICANN.so it
servers us instead of blocking and may be in the future directnig
us.
Jefsey
on 04:45 01/03/02, William S. Lovell said:
Methinks one can neither exclude
nor segregate any class of persons
who have an interest in ICANN's activities from being a member of
ICANN-AT-LARGE, should that entity come into official existence,
and that ranges from the innocent user who does not even have a
domain name to the registrars, etc. Persons belonging to the one
class or the other have one thing in common -- they each get one
vote in whatever it may be that ICANN-AT-LARGE has taken up.
It might be that a bunch of registrars might gang up and make a
bloc vote on something, but if there's even 20 of them, that's only
20 votes. The "hoi polloi" of the Internet vastly outnumber any
such
"special interest" grouping, hence so long as the individuals
are
paying attention and voting on what counts, any such "clique"
voting will be like a drop in the bucket.
A vote is a vote, and the fact that a particular ballot was cast by
someone who in another context (some constituency) carries a lot
of weight, in the ICANN-AT-LARGE voting that vote is still just
one vote. Machs nichts, de nada, and all that.
People should worry instead about getting their own vote cast.
Bill Lovell
Harold Whiting wrote:
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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|