[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

James and all,

James Love wrote:

> The recent HP/Compaq vote is a good illustration of the democracy that is
> available to shareholders in for-profit corporations.
>
> It would seem to us to be fairly simple to allow every .org domain holder to
> vote to express preferences with regard to who should get the .org bid.
> Unlike the at large election, there is a known list of potential voters, and
> also a ready and inexpensive way to contact them and to verify who they are.

  Yes Jamie there is a large list of potential voters for a bid on .ORG.
There is ALSO a fairly good size list of potential candidates that
would submit such a bid for .ORG.  Hence it would seem to me
that using the USG's bidding process would seem appropriate
in this instance, but adding that Non-US organizations may also
bit under that process.

>
> Verisign, who is making millions off of .org, could bear the costs of
> election, as a cost of the transfer, but the election could be run by a
> trusted third party, of which there are several who do this.

  Good point here as well, and one that has been suggested on a number
of occasions by a number of other stakeholders or stakeholder groups.
However as with the "Selection/Lottery" process that the ICANN BoD
decided upon in Nov 2000, they have shown a clear history of desiring
to have absolute control of these types of processes, however ill or well
defined...

>
>
> This type of "bottom-up" opinion making would be innovative and fair, and
> help resort confidence in the ICANN process.

  Yes, as you suggested above, such a process method would go some
way down the road to restoring some confidence in the ICANN
BoD and staff..  Let's hope that the ICANN BOD and staff
will allow for a truly random determination of such a third part
method, instead of how they negatively manipulated the last, and
only At-Large Election.

>  Such a vote does even have to
> be binding, and could include feedback even on preferred management models
> or objectives.

  True.  But it would be best if it was binding.  At the moment, and it seems
to me, from the beginning, non binding methods as applied to the ICANN
BOD and staff have been part of it's severe loss in confidence by a growing
number of stakeholders around the globe.

>  I also think it would be much better than the GA process,
> since it is so difficult to keep up with all of the GA flaming, and a .org
> vote would be "pure" in the sense that it would only include views of people
> who use and pay for .org domains.

  Well yes and no Jamie.  How about the users of .ORG domains.  As
potential consumers in some instances, aren't you than saying that
they "Don't Count"?  I dare say that consumers/stakeholder would find
that particularly disenfranchising...

>
>
>  Jamie
>
> --------------------
> James Love, mailto:james.love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
> voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
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 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