Re: [ifwp] Re: Position of the SOs vis-a-vis ICANN

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

Esther and all,

Esther Dyson wrote:

> Some interesting points to pay attention to.
>
> Some  further questions:
>
> How do "users" count themselves?

Easy and direct answer is that each user has a E-Mail ID.  One E-Mail
id per user= one user.

> Am I a different person with regard to
> (say) addresses vs. as an At Large member? How are the users who join
> (whatever that means) an SO different from those who join the AL membership?

  We take it that you are differentiating the difference between a Domain Name
owner and a standard user ( non domain name owner)?  If so than a Domain Name
holder is not different than a standard user (Non domain name holder) as far as
definition as a At Large Member as you put it.  You can break it down thus:

To Wit, for voting purposes:

standard user (non Domain Name holder) = 1 vote ( but with only one E-Mail ID)
Domain Name holder                     = 1 vote ( but with only one E-Mail ID)

>
> As a user, how do I want my influence mediated?

This should be the choice of the user, naturally.  Proxy if they should so
choose.

> Would I like my ISP to
> represent me in the AL membership in some way?  Is membership a burden that
> I *want* to cede to someone who will go to (boring) meetings on my behalf,
> study the issues, etc.?  How are my interests similar to an different from
> those of other users?

  Your interests, if they may differ form others substantially enough, than you
should represent yourself. If not substantial that you can proxy that if you
should so choose to whomever you wish.  Much like power of attorney,
or limited power of attorney.

>
>
> On Roberto's earlier point re timing, all these discussions are proceeding
> in parallel and can probably enrich one another.  I doubt the  call for SO
> proposals is going to contain enough constraints to make any of these
> conversations moot.

  This sounds troubling.  It sounds as if you have already decided this point
here. Is that right Esther?

>
>
> Esther Dyson
>
>  At 03:25 PM 11/28/98 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
> >At 02:22 PM 11/28/98 , Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >>I have the impression that some of the issues debated in the DNSO (I
> >>cannot speak for the others, because I didn't participate at all) are
> >>helpful in better defining the topics for the ICANN debate as well.
> >>For instance, the discussion we had in Barcelona/Monterrey (and on the open
> >>discuss@dnso.org list) on membership allowed us to proceed with some ideas
> >>that will turn out handy in the debate on ICANN general membership. I don't
> >>see completely separate process, but a set of converging processes.
> >
> >
> >Hi Roberto,
> >
> >I think you have said this very nicely.
> >
> >IMHO, the next major question on the horizon is membership.  One way
> >to frame this issue is as follows:
> >
> >GOAL:  To prevent capture, to provide a flexible structure that does
> >not entrench existing constituencies, and to provide user representation
> >to balance the influence of commercial/political interests.
> >
> >The current ICANN by-laws address this issue by mandating balanced
> >representation on the ICANN board (9 at-large members, 9 SO members,
> >and an appointed president).
> >
> >BWG, ORSC and others have argued that this is too much influence for
> >the existing constituencies.  First, because there is a conflict of
> >interest when SO's recommend policy, then vote on it.  Second, because
> >the user communities are undeveloped, extremely diverse, and unlikely
> >to be able to counter a coordinated effort by the SO's.
> >
> >The current argument in support of this structure is that each SO will
> >have user's representation to moderate this effect.
> >
> >OTHER APPROACHES
> >
> >The question is not whether there will be user representation (UR),
> >it's more a question of where to place it in the organizational
> >structure, and how to weight it.  On one end of the spectrum, we have
> >UR *only* in the SO's, without any representation in the ICANN Board.
> >On the other, we have UR *only* in the ICANN Board, without any
> >representation in the SO's.
> >
> >Currently, the ICANN by-laws have 47% UR on the ICANN Board, and the
> >last I heard, the DNSO has less than a 20% UR in the DNSO.  I don't
> >believe that this is a very stable structure, and I do believe that
> >this structure must be changed.
> >
> >As you have correctly pointed out, these decisions can't be made
> >without a coordinated approach, one that looks at balancing UR between
> >the ICANN Board and the SO's, given the goals outlined above.
> >
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Jay Fenello
> >President, Iperdome, Inc.
> >404-943-0524  http://www.iperdome.com
> >
> >
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe:  October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: 21 to 24  March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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