Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

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

Joe and all,

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
>  > - Who are the GA members?
>  >    - What is the definition of a GA member?
>
> The DNSO GA shall consist of individuals who apply to be recognized as
> members.  The member recognition process must attempt to weed out
> "personas" from real people.

 Of course, what you are suggesting would be a shift or change from what has

already been done or is in effect currently with the exception of some
actions
that certain members have taken to in violation of the current documented
and obviously excepted method.

If a change in this policy is warranted or desired I offer the following
response
to your suggestions Joe:

  Of course this should be done in as much as it is possible.  In some
countries
this not feasible however.  Many of us here know this.

>  The basic recognition process must
> associate a specific e-mail address with a specific, verifiable person.
> The only way to do this currently is to use a PKI certificate signed by
> a recognized signer which validates physical identity before creating
> the certificate.

  This is true in most countries and is available in some 80+ countries,
but leaves out quite a few others presently where PKI technology is
either not available or not legal to use as a means of electronically
identifying some "Interested" parties.  Therefore is can be used,
for some, but as the ONLY method of identification, leaves out
others which is disenfranchising them unfairly and unduly.

>  That means that someone has to be able to see the
> identity behind the certificate and make sure the person is not using
> other e-mail addresses.  This raises the level of fraud to that of
> forging standard identification documents, but it also adds to the
> administrative overhead for the DNSO.  Do we have a budget to support
> this process?  If we do not have the budget, then we might as well give
> up on validated membership right now.

  Budget can be obtained if the DNSO does not have it presently.
Independent
other organizations I am sure, such as ours INEGRoup would be willing to
help provide and acquire the necessary funding if the method is all
inclusive
for ANYONE that wishes to participate or want's to be a member.

>
>
>  >    - How do we check that people conform to the definition?
>
> Someone associated with the DNSO has to validate membership.  Does a
> budget exist within ICANN to support this?
>
>  > - How does the GA decide?
>  >    - How is a decision (or alternate decisions) proposed to the GA?
>
> Questions are posed via a "public comments" Web page.  Questions posed
> must be seconded via the same mechanism within 3 days.  Seconding
> requires 1% (of the defined GA membership) favorable response to the
> question.  Seconded questions are debated on the GA mailing list.  I
> would really like it if we could define some sort of consensus
> procedure, but I have the feeling that the DNSO GA will be just too
> divided on many issues to be anything more than a straight democracatic
> body.  Calling a question is a difficult decision.  How do you determine
> that enough debate has taken place?  Time limit?  Straw poll?

  Time limit method would be best to be decided for resolutions and
amendments for each business or proposal offered, possibly even
groups of resolutions and amendments.  But again this must be decided
by the Assembly members together, ALL of them.

>
>
>  >    - How does the GA choose to make (or not make) a decision?
>
> Once a question is on the floor, so to speak, it has to eventually be
> tabled or voted on.  Voting will be done through e-mail ballot
> notification and recorded on a web site.  Kent Crispin's vote bot seems
> like a good choice.

  Kents Vote Bot has met with some serious problems presently on the
NCDNHC constituency as votes have been mysteriously "Lost".  Kents
Vote Bot also suffers from the lack of secret ballot, therefore is a
violation
of present US Privacy laws as well.

>
>
> I can imagine several different methods to validate members and propose
> questions for discussion.  I have a very hard time figuring out how to
> fairly limit debate and call a question.  How much voting will people
> want to do?  Vote on every item?  Vote multiple times per day?  I only
> read my personal e-mail in the evening, and the GA is personal e-mail
> and not work-related.  Therefore, people who read at work, and who work
> in similar time-zones may get one idea of how a debate is going until
> those in other time-zones or who do not read at work enter the debate.
> For that reason, it would not work to have multiple ballots per day or
> even per week.  I can see requiring a ballot within two weeks of posing
> a question to see if debate should continue, but if you really need
> something decided sooner than that, I just don't see a realistic way to
> do it.

  Some members will be pressed to participate in voting on every resolution
or amendment.  Dedicated and strongly interested members will find the time.

>
>
> I am really stuck on the member validation until we know whether and how
> much administrative support the DNSO GA has.
>
> /Joe
> --
> 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

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


--
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