RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Ken,

If you insist that all the tough questions are taken offline and dealt with
in private, then we might as well all pack up.

No doubt you will agree that an At Large Director needs to participate in
order to communicate with their electorate. That deals with Karl's
membership.

It was not my intention to single out anybody, or to "intimidate" you, but
Marilyn brought the questions upon herself. I have the highest regard for
her professional acumen and know full well she anticipated this line of
questioning, whether from me, or Danny, whether on or offlist, and IMHO,
these kinds of issues should be aired in public, not least because the At
Large is intended to advocate the public interest and it is important not to
beg the question "who is defining the public interest?", (largely the point
raised by Esther a few days ago on the ALSC forum list).

A person who is a paid advocate for a special interest group cannot work
both sides of the fence in my personal opinion, whether or not they are a
domain name registrant or not. While the support is certainly welcome, isn't
it better for them to participate in the At Large debate as an advocate of
their special interest group, transparently, perhaps even joining a
"provider" class of membership that would have special value to the
organization. In this way, we would have no diffulty evaluating the weight
of contributions and give them the merit they deserve, as opposed to giving
ammunition to those who would say Marilyn was lobbying for AT & T in a
subversive fashion, and confusing those who are not familiar with her
position. It seems to me this would be a workeable relationship to engender
the trust we so badly need if all are amenable.

I apologize for raising this issue on the GA list, and would not have done
so had the ALSC forum not suddenly disappeared without advance notice, (due
to some flaw in the Registrar transfer process perhaps).

In addition to the above, I would also mention that there is no provision on
the website for corporate pledges, which is missing an opportunity to raise,
say, $100,000 in matching funds for staff support and resources, that a
separate category of membership would allow to occur, with different levels
of status. Just a thought that needs fleshing out.

I am mindful to avoid unecessary procedural clutter, so let's to cut to the
chase. It is my suggestion to agree one ground rule. While the DNSO
continues to operate as currently structured, no officers of the DNSO shall
be eligible to stand for office in the At Large.

Regards,
Joanna


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:03 AM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; Joop Teernstra
> Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
>
>
> joann & others...
>
> i would hope that as an individual i would be able to participate in the
> icann-at-large without any concern of being "intimidated" into not
> participating .
>
> correspondence of this sort is not constructive. if you have concerns
> joanna, i personally feel  you should take them DIRECTLY to
> Marilyn instead
> of trying to make a public 'thing" out of it.
>
> this is not a good way to start out here.. many of us work for companies
> which may already be participating in some way in one or another
> constituancy or already be part of a specific "interest group" (i believe
> that Karl Auerbach has some financial relationship with Cisco and no one
> questions his right to participate)
>
> suggest you "back it down a notch or two"  here
>
> regards
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> To: <mcade@att.com>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>;
> <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:37 AM
> Subject: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
>
>
> > (I am posting this to the GA because the ALSC forum list has
> been killed.)
> >
> > Dear Marilyn,
> >
> > I notice you have just signed up as an individual member and domain name
> > holder of the new At Large Members Organization at
> > http://www.icannatlarge.com. In what capacity may I ask?
> >
> > As you know, the At Large Organization is being set up
> primarily to lobby
> > ICANN for representation of those who are currently not able to
> participate
> > in the process through membership of other groups, specifically
> individual
> > domain name registrants, users and the public in general.
> >
> > Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are a professional Internet
> and
> > Government lobbyist in fulltime employ with AT&T, a Telco. In that
> capacity
> > you are a member of the DNSO Business Constituency and represent that
> group
> > (some 33 Businesses) on the Names Council. You Chair two of the
> NC's Task
> > Forces, namely the Transfer Task Force and the Whois Task
> Force, and will
> be
> > speaking on behalf of both of those groups (representing the
> views of all
> 7
> > constituencies) at the forthcoming Names Council Meeting in Accra
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00210.html. Furthermore,
> you
> > have some unspecified involvement with the IDN Task Force
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00036.html which still
> leaves
> > time for you to be an active member of the DNSO General Assembly. This
> > amounts to your representing every single member of each constituency of
> the
> > DNSO at one time or another in the current process.
> >
> > Now, are we to understand that in addition to this, you now
> seek for your
> > voice to be heard in the formation of this new bottom-up
> organization? If
> > so, would this be on a level playing field with every other individual,
> > including the possibility of standing for election as an
> officer of the At
> > Large? Or are we to understand that you have joined simply to make a (no
> > doubt generous) pledge on behalf of AT & T, with no desire to
> expand your
> > role into areas such as seeking election as a representative of At Large
> > Members within the ICANN process?
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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