RE: [ga] Nomination Procedures for the Chair of the General Assembly (GA)

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I think that Ben's suggestion is worthwhile. It doesn't seem onerous as
suggested. Marilyn Cade

-----Original Message-----
From: dstein@travel-net.com [mailto:dstein@travel-net.com]
Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 3:32 PM
To: Ben Edelman; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedures for the Chair of the General
Assembly (GA)




Well the notion of a `network of trust` is interesting so long as it is not
the 
exclusive or even the preferred method of identification. There is a danger
in 
trust networks of stagnation. No one *really* new ever comes in because no
one 
really knows them enough. 

On a more general note, I think that if we don`t accept some degree of 
uncertainty and perfection in the system (not just in the bootstrap process
but 
afterwards as well) we will be faced with cumbersome bureaucracy, and more 
attention to process than actual content.  That cannot be a desired result.


Dan Steinberg
Synthesis: Law & Technology


> As I reviewed the Nomination Procedures for the GA Chair, I was struck by
> the section I've excerpted at the bottom of this message.
> 
> I think we've all come to understand the difficulty of "bootstrapping" --
> that even the act of setting procedures for a process has effects on the
> results, making it difficult or impossible for at least the first
iteration
> of a process to be legitimate since its procedure was determined, in a
> sense, arbitrarily.  I'd like to think I'm sensitive to that problem --
and
> correspondingly lenient towards the first round of elections, nominations,
> review committees, etc.  But the nomination watchdog committee described
> below caught my eye, for it seems to suffer from a "who will watch the
> watchers" problem.
> 
> I've met certain of the watchdog committee members -- I believe I've met
or
> at least seen Jonathan, Kent, Javier, and Roberto at various of the ICANN
> meetings of the past year, though it's certainly possible that my memory
> fails me.  But I don't recall meeting Bradley at any such occasion, nor do
I
> see him in quick perusal of the LA remote participant lists (see
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/archive>).  Not to single him out
> unduly, but is some additional level of authentication perhaps in order
for
> at least the members of the watchdog committee?
> 
> I recall from MAC deliberations one means of authentication considered for
> the Membership at large: The transmission by fax of government-issued
> photographic identification to some central trusted facility that would
> cross check IDs with registration lists.  As I recall, the MAC worried
that
> this would be overly burdensome for a Membership ultimately hoped to be
> quite large, and the process was thought to be unmanageable when faced
with
> thousands of kinds of identification from hundreds of different countries.
> 
> I understand and agree with the MAC's concerns in their context, but,
here,
> might it be appropriate to ask the watchdog committee members to
> authenticate themselves in this way -- to each prove that a sovereign
state
> certifies their existence by issuing appropriate documents?  Might we then
> post their photo IDs online, of course protecting key information about
each
> (social security number and, conceivably, street address, I suggest, for
US
> IDs)?
> 
> Again, my concern is not so much with the particular individuals under
> consideration here but with the overall process.  It seems unwise, to me,
to
> nominate to a position of power even a single individual who perhaps no
> member of the Names Council or ICANN Board has ever met, without at least
> requiring some reasonable baseline level of authentication.
> 
> I'm certainly open to alternative methods of authentication -- a "network
of
> trust" (where, if I trust, say, Jonathan Zittrain and he says he knows
Kent
> Crispin, then I accept Kent's legitimacy even if I've never met him) comes
> to mind, for example, and I'm sure there are numerous other suitable
methods
> too.
> 
> 
> In general, I think we need to take appropriate precautions to assure that
> this and other ICANN-related processes aren't tainted by fraud.  I support
> the role of the Watchdog Committee, and I think the procedures for
choosing
> the GA Chair by and large do an adequate job of preventing fraud.  But I
> nonetheless remain concerned by the prospect of arbitrarily-chosen,
unknown
> participants on the Committee or in any other office.  Thoughts from
others?
> 
> 
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet and Society
> Harvard Law School
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The DNSO Listadmin wrote:
> 
> >       Nomination Procedures for the Chair of the General Assembly (GA)
> ....
> >   9. A nomination watchdog committee shall be formed to police the
> >      nomination process to help detect and cure any instances of
> fraudulent
> >      activity in connection with the nomination process.
> ....
> >
> >           The committee shall consists of the authors of the
> >           nominations procedures proposals submitted to the GA, which
> >           includes Jonathan Weinberg, Kent Crispin, Javier Rodriguez,
> >           Roberto Gaetano and Bradley Thorton.
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Travel-Net Web Mail.
http://www.travel-net.com/