[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: At Large Membership Markle Meeting Report
Laura
the posting below is a classic example of some of the serious problems we
encounter in try to insure that elections in the future of at-large
directors represent a broad section of truly LEGITIMATE internet users.
the ability for someone to easily assume a ficticious identity like jeff
williams or this bob davis personna is one of the potential abuses which we
must guard against in insuring that any future election represents a
concensus achieved by a legitimate constituancy.
best wishes for a happy holiday season
ken stubbs
chairman - Internet council of registrars
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>
To: dnso General assembly list <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: Bailyn, Laura <laura_bailyn@markle.org>; <abd@cdt.org>; Shapiro, Andrew
<ashapiro@markle.org>; <mmcgehee@commoncause.org>; Esther Dyson
<edyson@edventure.com>; Becky Burr <bburr@ntia.doc.gov>; Phil Gramm
<phil_gramm@gramm.senate.gov>; commerce <commerce@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 12:15 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: At Large Membership Markle Meeting Report
> Jeff,
>
> Thank you for including me on your response here Jeff. It is always
> a positive thing to be as inclusive as possible.
>
> Laura, I hope that in the future, you will share future information
> with as wide of audience as possible. I enjoyed your comments
> here, and hope to be hearing more from you, as I am sure all
> stakeholders would. We [INEGroup] will be paying very close
> attention. Please include me in you mailing list in the future if
> you would.
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Laura and all,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your comments and dialoge here Laura,
> > it is much appritiated by myself and I am sure with many of our
> > [INEGroup's] members as well a the NCDNHC.
> >
> > In your comments you did not address some of my questions
> > directly that I had posed to Kathy and the NCDNH members
> > very clearly. So I woul like to ask some of them again so as to
> > gain a more accurate understanding if I may.
> >
> > One of my concerns as I am others have stated on many occasions
> > is the limitation on the size of the ICANN Membership organization.
> > What in your conversations with Kathy did you or anyone at the NCDNHC
> > meeting in Los Angeles discuss along these lines?
> >
> > Another of my questions (See below in my response to Kathy and
> > this list) was, "Why were only some "Invited" groups allowed to attend?"
> > And as a follow up to these two questions: Will in the future, these
> > meeting be open to all whom wish to attend that have been involved in
this
> > process in the future?
> >
> > In closing Laura, I want to thank you again for you interesting and
> > somewhat informative response. I look forward to your answers
> > directly to my questions for our [INEGroup's] members, so that
> > they may also be included and aware.
> >
> > Bailyn, Laura wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff and all,
> > >
> > > We thank Kathy for sharing the ncdnhc's and her own hopes for and
concerns
> > > about ICANN's At-Large membership.
> > >
> > > To clarify some confusion: the conference call in which Kathy
participated
> > > was not an ICANN meeting but rather an informal, information-gathering
> > > session organized by Common Cause as part of its independent effort to
> > > observe and make recommendations regarding ICANN's At-Large Membership
> > > formation and election procedures. They're undertaking this project
in
> > > conjunction with CDT and other partners, with the support of the
Markle
> > > Foundation.
> > >
> > > Part of the group's observation and information-gathering efforts
include
> > > following the ncdnhc discussion list so that the crucial
non-commercial
> > > perspective within ICANN is better understood and accounted for in
their
> > > effort -- as well as reviewing all previous ICANN membership
discussion
> > > group lists, MAC reports and relevant Berkman archives.
> > >
> > > The session which Kathy described was not recorded. It was not really
> > > intended to solicit or produce new ideas or opinions about the
At-Large
> > > Membership. Rather, it was simply an efficient and friendly way for
some
> > > new observers to process a wide range of views about the At-Large
> > > membership. Various perspectives were heard in separate sessions so
that
> > > each would have ample time to be heard.
> > >
> > > I hope that this is a helpful clarification and response to Kathy's
question
> > > as well. Also, I would like to reiterate (as I had mentioned at the
Los
> > > Angeles ncdnhc meeting) that further information about the Markle
Foundation
> > > grant proposal application procedure can be found on our website,
> > > www.markle.org.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Laura Bailyn
> > > The Markle Foundation
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:52 PM
> > > To: KathrynKL@aol.com
> > > Cc: ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org; abd@cdt.org; ashapiro@interport.net
> > > Subject: Re: At Large Membership Markle Meeting Report
> > >
> > > Kathy and all,
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this note with us, as I am sure it will be
> > > helpful for some to get a idea anyway of how these meetings
> > > were conducted and some ideas of what the ICANN membership
> > > organization can or should be about.
> > >
> > > In this light I have some comments and questions I would like
> > > to share with everyone and especially with you. (See more
> > > specifically below your comments).
> > >
> > > KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry for delay in posting this report.
> > > > About two weeks ago, I sent a note to this list asking for views on
the At
> > > > Large Membership. Thanks to everyone who responded! Your comments
were
> > > very
> > > > helpful in the preparation of my remarks.
> > > >
> > > > What happened: as you know the Markle Foundation has made a very
large
> > > grant
> > > > directly to ICANN for organization of the At Large Membership. At
the
> > > same
> > > > time, the Markle Foundation has given grants to a set of
organizations
> > > > including CDT, Carter Center, Common Cause and American Libraries
Assoc.
> > > to
> > > > help guide and advise it regarding the creation of the At Large
> > > Membership.
> > >
> > > I am somewhat puzzled as to why it is perceived and/or needed that
> > > any large sum for the formation of the ICANN Membership Organization.
> > > Didn't ICANN already have a Membership Discussion group sometime
> > > back that was a mailing list (membership@icann.org)? Shouldn't
> > > it be incumbent that anyone and everyone should have had the
opportunity
> > > to participate in these discussions? When and where did ICANN
> > > announce and/or post any information about this meeting? Why were
> > > only some "Invited" groups allowed to attend? Or was this even
> > > so?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This group then arranged one day where it met in separate conference
calls
> > > > with representatives of the noncommercial community, and separately
ICANN,
> > > > the technical community and the business community. I was part of
the
> > > first
> > > > group, noncommercial, with people including Prof. Michael Froomkin,
Prof.
> > > > David Post, and Theresa Amato (nader's group) also asked to talk.
> > >
> > > I am presuming you are talking about the meeting in LA??
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We talked about our hope for and concerns about the At Large
Membership.
> > > > Overwhelmingly, we told the Markle group that we thought the
barriers to
> > > > joining the At Large membership should be low, but that the
Membership
> > > should
> > > > be given lots of good, concise, and accurate summary materials
regarding
> > > the
> > > > substantive issues that ICANN is dealing with at the time (materials
which
> > > do
> > > > not now exist and are actually difficult to write well).
> > >
> > > I believe there is some good and concise background information
> > > in the Berkman Center archives of the ICANN Membership Discussion
> > > list. And there may likely still be some additional background in the
> > > older comments@IANA.org as well, if I am not mistaken.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We also overwhelmingly told the group that we thought the
expectations of
> > > the
> > > > Membership were too great. Based on the rhetoric we had heard, we
felt
> > > that
> > > > the At Large Membership was being viewed as the magical piece of
ICANN
> > > which
> > > > would make all other problems go away.
> > >
> > > By "Too Great" what do you mean here specifically Kathy? Are you
> > > talking in terms of the size of the ICANN membership? Or???
> > >
> > > > We pointed out that even if the
> > > > Membership is well and carefully formed, protecting democratic
principles
> > > --
> > > > and putting good practices into place -- remains a concern
throughout
> > > ICANN
> > > > including in General Assembly and DNSO, in comment periods before
the
> > > ICANN
> > > > Board, etc.
> > >
> > > Good point, and yes, I believe this is certainly a serious concern,
> > > especially
> > > in terms of what has occurred of late on the DNSO lists and at the LA
> > > meeting.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The noncommercial segment of the Markle At Large Meeting then ended
and we
> > > > visitors left the call. I had earlier asked if I might stay and
just
> > > listen
> > > > to the subsequent discussions of ICANN leaders and technical and
business
> > > (so
> > > > I could let you know their views). I was told that only those groups
> > > chosen
> > > > by the Markle Foundation could participate in these discussions.
> > >
> > > I think that not allowing anyone to continue to listen at least was
> > > completely inappropriate, and engenders, or at least makes me believe
> > > that the ICANN and now it seems the Markle Foundation is not to
> > > be trusted as to accountability. In other words, I smell a rat here.
> > > I am sure this rat will appear sooner or later. >:(
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Accordingly, I would like to ask if Andrew Shapiro of Markle or Alan
> > > Davidson
> > > > of CDT would like to share some of the thoughts they heard from
other
> > > > communities and their views of this meeting.
> > >
> > > I would further like to ask if this conference call was recorded?
> > > Otherwise
> > > any information we receive from Andrew Shapiro is second hand, and
less
> > > reliable. Isn't it in the ICANN bylaws that these meetings are
supposed
> > > to be recorded? I believe it is. And if I am not mistaken, they are
> > > supposed to be published within 7? days...
> > >
> > > > Clearly, the At Large
> > > > Membership is an area of concern to this Constituency. Thanks for
your
> > > input
> > > > and work in this area. We understand that you will probably not
respond
> > > > until next week, after the Thanksgiving Holiday in the US.
> > > >
> > > > regards, kathy
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > > leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members 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: 972-447-1894
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
laura_bailyn@markle.org
> > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > > leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
> >
> > Kindest Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members 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: 972-447-1894
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> Bob Davis...
>
> __________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>