----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 4:06
PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Diversity &
the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws
Ken,
Are
you saying that you believe people have less of a tendency to participate (or
have an ambivalence) because they live in a certain
region?
Regardless, I do not think that the solution
to the ambivalence problem is to mandate that excom be constrained to people
from certain geographical areas.
What I'm saying is that I believe that if you
were to poll registrars on issues you'd see more of a correlation
between
size (large vs. small registrars), then
business model (reseller vs. retail), then other registrar attributes
(such as where your customers are located and
which TLDs most
of your names are registered in), and near last
geographical.
I do agree that there are geographical
*issues* (such as IP and privacy laws being geographical) but that that
relevancy is diminished
because many (if not
most) registrars have customers in *all* the geographical areas
even though the registrar may situate their
company headquarters in one area.
I would guess that eNom is just as concerned
about EU privacy issues as other registrars in
Europe,
and I know my concern is based on the fact
that eNom has customers in Europe, not because
our headquarters are in N. America.
I would also guess that there is a correlation
between ambivalency and registrar size.
So if you want to decrease ambivalence, you'd
probably need to increase the size of that
registrar.
Even though I think there is the above
issue-attribute correlations, I'm also saying that I think, in this case,
it would be sub-optimal to mandate that the
excom be made up of X registrars
with this location/model/size
and Y registrars with that
location/model/size.
Paul
Paul,
What i see in the future is a need for emphasis on
issues & their management to be more "global".
I believe that if you were to poll registrars and have them
list those issues which were paramount in their minds at this time that there
would be a significant difference between registrars
in, say, Europe & the USA, for example..
Many registrars i have talked to in
Europe, Australia, & asia are dealing with
serious
"privacy issues" and the potential liability which attaches
to them whereas i have seen little dialogue, except for Tucows, in this area
from North American registrars.
Maybe you have some ideas as to how to deal with some of the
"ambivalence" as I too share Ross's concerns about lack of
participation.
I place some of these proposals out in public
view to stimulate discussion and hopefully to create a higher awareness
of some of the constituency's "quieter issues".
Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:33
PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Diversity
& the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws
Ken,
I
am for diversity. I wish we had more of it. More participation
is good.
I
do not think, though, that we can mandate or impose it.
I
assume you are not suggesting we provide an incentive of some kind for
registrars from certain geographical
regions to participate.
I
strongly oppose artificial constraints on who can be elected to our
constituency leadership.
I
for one do not want to be forced to vote for a person who I beleive
*does not* represent my
registrar's views when the person who I believe
better represents those views is ineligable
becuase someone else from the same region has
already been elected.
Especially when it is difficult enough to get
people to run for the executive committee at all.
Besides, as you point out below, we already have
this imposition at other levels at ICANN
to
insure that the internet community from around the globe are duly
represented, which, unfortunately,
raised its head even recently when it was pointed
out to me that if one qualified person
(Michael) was elected, it would be difficult for
another qualified person (Vint) to be elected
to
the ICANN board since they are both from the same region of the
planet.
I
do not believe that many issues effecting our constituency divide us
geographically,
which I believe is unlike ICANN that has more
geographical-based issues (ccTLDs, etc.)
I
believe issues our membership will be (and are) deciding naturally
separate us
more along economic lines that geographical
lines.
If
you want to artificially constrain our excom, why don't you suggest we have
so many small registrars
and so many big registrars represented on the
excom? This I believe would create more balanced
representation on excom than having all big
registrars but just from different countries.
That would not be diverse, now would it?
(Again, I oppose *any* artificial
constraints).
Plus, I believe we still have this thing called
"voting" in which every registrar has equal
opportunity
to
weigh in on issues no matter what their latitude and longitude
combination may be.
Paul
Ross's recent observations :
" A review of the Registrar
Constituency mailing list archive paints an equally dismal
picture. The
fact is, regardless of the issue and absent extenuating
circumstances,
voter turnout is very poor. More than three years ago around
this time of
the year you indicated on this mailing list that you had strong
concerns
about the level of participation in the constituency. It doesn't
appear
that the dynamic has substantially changed."
are well taken.
It would appear to me that we have an opportunity with this by law
revision to make a positive statement to all constituents
by including in the requirements for composition of the
executive committee as well as including in "guidelines" for task
force participants a
requirement for "global diversity" (as defined in the ICANN
by-laws). I have noted at the various registrar meeting many
competent parties representing registrars from all parts of the globe and
believe that imposition of this Diversity guideline will encourage
greater participation by these qualified parties.
Addition of this requirement & these task force participation
guidelines to the by-laws would result in the establishment of a
more solid foundation for increased future "global participation" by more
members of the constituency..
Over the next few years registrar issues are going to become much more
"global centric" (i.e. privacy just for starts) & it is essential
that we have
globally-balanced direction from our executive
committee.
ICANN has already seen fit to require this with respect
to constituency names council representation,
Don't we think that it is a good time to implement this Diversity
policy within our own constituency ??
best wishes
ken stubbs