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

["James Love" <love@cptech.org>]

IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.

1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
2. No one who works for a registrar or registry should vote in any other
constituency.

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest


> IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.
>
> 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
> 2. No one who works for a registrar or registrar should vote in any other
> constituency.
>
>   Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>

--
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