Re: Private Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

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

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Thank you for the "Bravo" Joanna!  >;)  Although I am reasonably sure
it was tongue in cheek...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Jefsey,
> I have just sent the following to the list. What I have *not* said is that
> Philip Shepard does not want *any* Registrant representative on the TF, he
> wants to get rid of Danny as GA Rep because Marilyn Cade is Chair and she
> doesn't know what she is doing. Danny is making her follow procedure - read
> the Transfer ML. All I tried to do was argue representation for IDNH on
> Transfer TF, but you would rather have nobody.
>
> Patrick complains Danny is on too many TF - he agrees, he has too much work,
> but nobody except Jeff Williams has volunteered to take his place. Danny is
> now arguing that TF rules state Philip can appoint *any interested person*,
> so that we can share the work, but Philip/ Marilyn will refuse. You argue
> against us and support Philip. You will have Jeff Williams as Transfer TF GA
> Rep.  Bravo.
>
> Joanna
>
> Jefsey,
>
> Please read the *full* text of my exchange with the Transfer Task Force/ NC
> about this matter, copied below, which gives a totally different picture
> from the misleading spin being paraded on this list.  As you will see I have
> not proposed myself as a representative of the GA, and have explicity denied
> that I am either seeking to represent the whole registrant community. Also,
> I refute you claim that I have resigned as a member of IDNO. In common with
> many other members, I unsubscribed to the list, that's all. Frankly, I'm
> surprised you posted this. It's not like you to jump in without checking the
> facts first.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00427.html
>
> on 11/26/01 8:12 AM, Philip Sheppard at philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:
>
> > Joanna,
> > Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on to me as
> > NC Chair,  a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the task
> > force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
> > representative of the GA.
>
> >
> > Typically, the working practice of task forces is that they comprise one rep
> > from each Constituency and an optional rep from the GA. They do work to help
> > formulate a recommendation to the NC. In this work the TF themselves may
> > consult experts and interested parties.
> >
> > Before taking this further could you let me know the basis for your
> > qualification as a representative of the registrant community ? In this it
> > would be helpful to know the means of outreach to other registrants, how this
> > is different to the nature of representation in the GA and how this is
> > differentiated against the opinions currently available to the task force from
> > its membership.
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Philip Sheppard
> > NC Chair
> >
>
> Philip,
>
> My inquiry is made specifically in response to concerns that I understand
> have been expressed by current Transfer Task Force members about the matter
> of under-representation of registrant interests. I am here to be as helpful
> as possible and will answer the latter questions first.
>
> Strictly speaking, it is not correct to say that I am seeking participation
> on the task force as the representative of the registrant community, if by
> that you mean the sole representative of the whole registrant community, as
> clearly some subsets will already be represented through existing
> constituency representatives. However, I would point out that in the absence
> of a "registrants constituency", so to speak, none of the constituencies can
> claim to be acting strictly in the capacity of a "registrant community
> representative" (as a whole) and I think that is part of our problem,
> notwithstanding that it is a challenging problem to solve when one looks at
> ICANN's current structure in general, and the DNSO in particular.
>
> To expand on that point for a moment, I would say that views available to
> the TF through existing constituencies, will be from various perspectives
> and in the natural course of events, each representative will have more than
> one perspective to bring to bear on an issue, depending on their core
> interest, as well as the registrants within their respective communities. On
> the one hand this is an asset, but on the other hand, it will cloud the
> determination of what input is coming from a pure registrant perspective.
> So although I couldn't possibly say that a representative should not voice
> their opinions from every perspective available as they see fit, it makes
> sense to have one voice available that is not compromised in any way from
> the outset. That will free the constituency reps from any possible conflict
> of interest and allow the various stakeholder groups to balance their
> concerns in a more even handed manner. In turn, this will help to balance
> the input overall, clarify the registrant perspective for others and from
> others, make it easier to document the process later on and ensure that
> there are no mixed messages in terms of the source, validity, nature and
> extent of the registrants perspective in the mix.
>
> More important than that, I would say it's vital for the Task Force to be
> perceived as having given proper consideration to those registrants who are
> not and cannot be represented by any of the constituencies for reasons of
> eligibility. Since transfers *do* impact individual registrants directly, it
> is a significant concern to them to be directly involved in any process
> involving policy changes, and it could be regarded as essential to
> implementation later on, that an individual's representative has been made
> freely available to help shape the agreement that will have a direct bearing
> on how they interact with registrars, the requirements that will be made of
> them, and the services they can reasonably expect to receive. Such a person
> would need to be specifically focused on and dedicated to looking out for
> those particular interests.
>
> As to the matter of how the task force can possibly be representative of
> individual registrant interests if a separate representative is not
> available, we would look to the GA Representative. However, the GA
> representative is there to work on behalf of a multitude of interests, not
> only for registrants, and in fact, the numbers of GA members whose core
> interest could be deemed to be in the registrant camp, as opposed to IP,
> ccSO, Alternate Roots, At Large and so on, amounts to a fairly small
> minority, and when one extracts from that number those whose core interests
> could be attributed specifically to those of individual registrants, rather
> than business registrants, non-commercial etc., one is left with merely a
> handful of members whose views the GA rep is actually obligated to
> represent, or has immediately available for outreach efforts. If one then
> looks to the wider community, where the number of individual registrants is
> vast, one has to recognize that a disproportionately small number are
> members of the GA (compared to the proportion of members from other groups
> within the GA, such as system administrators), yet individual registrants
> are very definitely an impacted group that deserve proper consideration.
> This can be resolved by giving them a direct voice in the process.
>
> If we can agree that individuals deserve a higher level of representation
> than a commensurate share of the GA voice could possibly give them, given
> the other interests that must be balanced in the GA input, then the GA reps
> job would appear to be transformed into a somewhat onerous task for one
> representative. While Danny is already in the unenviable position of having
> to constantly change hats to balance the full spectrum of interests that may
> be forthcoming from the one assembly, it would be putting him in an
> impossible position if he was also expected to skew the balance of his
> representation to compensate for under-representation of one small part.
> Please bear in mind that this is the *only* group that does not have its own
> constituency representative on the task force as well as the GA rep bringing
> its perspective to bear, and yet it is possibly the most adversely affected
> subset within the registrant community.
>
> To summarize, the task force would greatly benefit from having a
> representative available who is dedicated to the impact on registrants, with
> an established, if not exclusive, interest in individuals.
>
> I hope this part of my response outlines the basis sufficiently well for an
> agreement *in principal* for an additional appointment to the task force. I
> apologize for not addressing other aspects at this time, I am pressed for
> time unfortunately, but assure you that I will address your other questions
> as soon as possible, and in the meantime, perhaps you would let me have an
> further comments you may have on the above.
>
> Many thanks,
> Regards,
>
> Joanna
>
> on 11/27/01 8:08 AM, Jefsey Morfin at jefsey@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > Dear Phiilp,
> > Patrick Corliss has brough to the attention of the GA the proposition of
> > Danny Younger to call on Joanna Lane as a representative of the registrant
> > community.
> >
> > This proposition has not been discussed in the GA and will obviously
> > creates a debate if you consider Joanna as a "representative of the
> > registrant community". Yet - as one of those who could object to such a
> > proposition - I will support it strongly if we could once for all agree on
> > the concept of representation within the DNSO. I suppose that an agreement
> > on this matter would also help reducing hours and tons of mailing.
> >
> > Joanna has strictly no right whatsoever to represent any community. She
> > recently left the only existing attempt to structure that community. But
> > she has every qualification to well represent the interests, concerns,
> > particular needs and propositions of the individual registrants. As you
> > have yourself no right to represent the Business Community, but absolutely
> > legitimately have every qualification to represent the interest, concerns,
> > etc... of the Business Community.
> >
> > I would thefore strongly recommend that once for all we agree that all of
> > us are no representatives in a democratic way but insuring a trustee
> > representation towards consensus. And that a consensus is not a vote but a
> > no major objection by qualified interests that (if the ICANN processus
> > recently underlined by Danny is respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open
> > group may warranty.
> >
> > I would also add that if Joanna is fully qualified, experienced and
> > competent about individual registrants, as myself also a bulk commercial
> > registrant (I manage more than 2000 DNs for several portal chains) there
> > are many issues that individual do not experience that should be
> > represented. These involves matters like:
> >
> > - script management
> > - payment systems and wire transfers
> > - status reports - format, accuracy, legal value
> > - user escrowning
> > - UDRP insurance protection scheme
> > - DN Title
> > - DN usage international notarization
> > - customership evaluation and compensation
> > - legal responsibility of the Registrars/Registries
> > - places of jurisdiction
> > - name server management and bulk updates procedures and delays
> > - emergency support - like the ncdnhc current problem
> > - authentification of the registrant
> > - TLD procedure harmonization
> >
> > I suppose the BC or the ISPC could be a place to find such a representation
> > with competence.
> > Best regards
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 17:46 26/11/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:11 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> >> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00423.html
> >>
> >> Joanna,
> >>
> >> Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on to me as
> >> NC Chair, a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the task
> >> force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
> >> representative of the GA.
> >>
> >> Typically, the working practice of task forces is that they comprise one rep
> >> from each Constituency and an optional rep from the GA. They do work to help
> >> formulate a recommendation to the NC.  In this work the TF themselves may
> >> consult experts and interested parties.
> >>
> >> Before taking this further could you let me know the basis for your
> >> qualification as a representative of the registrant community ?  In this it
> >> would be helpful to know the means of outreach to other registrants, how this
> >> is different to the nature of representation in the GA and how this is
> >> differentiated against the opinions currently available to the task force
> >> from
> >> its membership.
> >>
> >> Many thanks.
> >>
> >> Philip Sheppard
> >> NC Chair
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> Joanna
>
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents")
>
> Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II: Flow Chart
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> Reader, which is available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> Part III - Time Line Guide
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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

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@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