RE: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Thanks for the very helpful summary of documents.  You are right that I
confused the "general assembly of the DNSO" (currently the ONLY ICANN body
that I am eligible to join) with the future "membership".

In my defense, I'd point out that since ICANN has yet to actually do
anything to have a membership except make future membership less important
and less attractive than in the original schema used to claim consensus
for the ICANN structure, the DNSO-GA is currently the only forum in which
individuals who might someday become "members" can participate it has
functioned as a sort of proxy, or stalking horse, for the membership.

I'm sorry if you find the word "squirmy" too harsh.  I remain very
disappointed regarding ICANN's actions towards the putative planned
membership for the reasons set out in my dialog with Joe Sims, archived at
http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf .  

In particular, the decision to rewrite the ByLaws in order not to have
individual "members" of any legally or politically meaningful sort flies
directly in the face of the very consensus ICANN proclaimed supported its
initial structure, and represents a decisive break with the White Paper
vision that provided ICANN's original claim to legitimacy.  Furthermore,
as described in some detail in
http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf/individuals.htm, ICANN's decision to remove
the members-with-meaning was originally justified on a very dubious
reading of California law, and was directly contrary to the staff report
which appeared to be the main document on the subject (it did appear in a
separate report which neither I nor many others following the subject
appear to have read until it was too late, since it only appeared in
August while we were on vacation).

I also continue to believe it is unfair to have the members' directors
elected in stages while allowing the other directors to be elected in one
stage.  This seems calculated - yes calculated - to minimize the influence
of the individual directors for as long as possible.  (Indeed, Joe Sims
clearly believes they should have no voice at all...)  

All that, however, is past, unless there is some chance the issues 
can be revisited in Cairo now that part of the Board is the
elected representeatives of part of the stakeholders?

Whether or not the old issues can get back on the table, may I presume on
your (laudable and apparently unique among ICANN officials) willingness to
continue to take part in this list to raise some new questions?

1) Is the ICANN Board going to take up in Cairo Jonathan Weinberg's
suggestions on improving the role of the membership? (See
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-bylaws/msg00015.html )  Is some
action required from outsiders to make this more likely?  If the Board is
not planning to do this, is there going to be an explanation as to why
this is not in order?  (Please consider this a formal request to agenda
this issue if such a request is required.)

2) Also, is the issue of new DNSO constituencies going to be in order in
Cairo?  If not, when will the IDNO issue actually be discussed and
resolved?

3) While I'm asking questions, do you know anything about the pending
applications for reconsideration that have been filed with ICANN?  Is
there a page that summarizes the status of these matters?  

I will look forward to announcements regarding the substance of the
matters the Board plans to "resolve" on membership. (The URL you provided
is currently just a placeholder and doesn't seem to have much content
about what's planned, presumably since the meeting is still six or so
weeks away.) In any event, I trust the public will have at least 30 days
to comment on substantive matters prior to the meeting, especially as the
meeting location is rather inaccessible for the large majority of current
Internet users.

Indeed, it would be wonderfully helpful if ICANN staff and Board members
were to participate in some list--any list-- where the public might get
advance warning of what they are thinking, and perhaps even be able to
discuss the issues with them *before* the meeting.  All the best will in
the world is unlikely to make remote real-time participation mean as much
as the chance to have thoughtful remote discussions asynchronously.


On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:

> Michael:
> 
> The DNSO GA is specific to the DNSO, just as the ASO GA is specific to the
> ASO and the PSO GA is specific to the PSO.  [Unlike the DNSO, the ASO and
> PSO have defined their "General Assemblies" as annual open meetings, not as
> standing entities.]  Conceptually, the DNSO GA is the aggregate of all
> individuals involved in the DNSO.  None of the three Supporting Organization
> GAs has any role in choosing the 9 At Large Directors on the ICANN Board,
> just as none of the three SO Councils has any role in choosing the 9 At
> Large Directors.  That's because the three SOs otherwise choose the other 9
> ICANN Directors.
> 
> The 9 At Large Directors are to be chosen by an At Large Membership.  The
> ICANN Board has defined the At Large Membership in Article II of the Bylaws
> <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II>;  and adopted resolutions at
> each of its last three meetings -- in Los Angeles
> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-4nov99.htm#membership>, in
> Santiago
> <http://www.icann.org/santiago/santiago-resolutions.htm#anchor21816>, and in
> Berlin <http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html#3>.  ICANN
> sought funding from various sources to finance the launch of the At Large
> Membership structure;  in November, the Markle Foundation announced that it
> would contribute $200,000 to finance it
> <http://www.icann.org/at-large/markle-proposal-21oct99.htm>.  Since then,
> ICANN has hired a project manager and technical consultants to build the
> back-end for membership registration and voting;  we're preparing to launch
> the Membership Implementation Task Force to assist with recruitment and
> outreach;  and the Board is preparing to resolve remaining membership &
> election policy issues at its next meeting, in Cairo in March.  See
> <http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm#agenda>.
> 
> Nothing squirmy here.  It's all there in black-and-white, as it has been for
> months, collected on the ICANN page for At Large Membership
> <http://www.icann.org/at-large/at-large.htm>.
> 
> --Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> [ -----Original Message-----
> [ From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Michael
> [ Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [ Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:24 PM
> [ To: Kent Crispin
> [ Cc: ga@dnso.org
> [ Subject: Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules
> [ 
> [ 
> [ This is contrary to my understanding of the facts.  I may be wrong, but
> [ I understood that membership in the GA was the primary means of
> [ establishing membership in the voting pool for at-large Board members.
> [ 
> [ If this is not correct, could someone please point me to the relevant
> [ document(s)?  I would be the first to admit that it is no longer possible
> [ to keep up with the ways in which ICANN continually squirms on the subject
> [ of what constitutes the general membership, so I am prepared to be
> [ corrected on this.
> [ 
> [ On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
> [ [...]
> [ 
> [ > It is you who has the apples and pianos.  There are *no* significant
> [ > rights inherent in GA "membership", just as there are *no* significant
> [ > rights inherent in IETF "membership".  In fact, "membership" is not well
> [ > defined for either organization.  This is an important and fundamental
> [ > concept, and until you understand it you will be shadow boxing with
> [ > ghosts.
> [ > 
> [ 
> [ Incidentally, this is also, as I understand it, not a true statement about
> [ the IETF, since "membership" (established by attending 2 meetings in the
> [ right time frame) entitles one to be be eligible to volunteer for a
> [ nominating committee, selected at random from among the volunteers, which
> [ will choose six IAB members. RFC 1601. The IETF thus has very important
> [ input into the membership of the IAB, making the IAB responsible to the
> [ IETF membership.  This is an important and fundamental concept, and until
> [ you understand it....
> [  
> [ 
> [ -- 
> [ 
> [ A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> [ U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> [ +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.t
> m
> [                         -->It's warm here.<--
> [ 
> [ 
> [ 
> 
> 

-- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--