[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A delayed reply to A.McL [Was RE: [ga] Final draft of proposedmailing list rules]
Diane and all,
We [INEGRoup] whole hartedly agree with you comments and sentiments
here. But if you recall back in July of '99, Mike Roberts made it clear
individual representation was and idea for "Kooks". I found this sort
of comment astounding, but that was his position, not that it is valid
of course. So I personally also must agree that an "At Large Assembly"
is necessary and should be in place for reasons of adequate representation
on the Stakeholder community and accountability purposes. This seemed
rather clear in the White Paper and the MoU as well.
Diane Cabell wrote:
> > > I'm sure Jonathan's suggestions will be given careful consideration
> > > the Board. I'll ask him to repost them in the dedicated comment
> > > forum, once it's been launched.
> > >
> > I am open to alternatives. If we can't manage something reasonably
> > democratic now, then some means needs to be found to virtually
> > the interests currently excluded. Few rights owners are actually
> > represented in the DNSO; representatives of trade associations stand
> > for them. Perhaps having people from appropriate Internet oriented
> > groups would work as an interim measure - CDT, EPIC, ACLU are US
> > possibilities. I'm not well informed about the extent to which similar
> > groups exist in other countries.
> Which ones are "appropriate"? Who decides? I strongly disagree with
> any proposal to substitute the political agenda of public interest
> groups for the voice of the individual user. Most PIs are structured as
> private non-profits with the same organizational and oversight
> limitations as ICANN. How does one elect the officers of these
> organizations? What are my rights of redress for their errors? What
> are their major sources of funding and are those significantly different
> from ICANN's?
> IMHO, putting such groups "in charge" of the public voice is less
> representative than the At Large Council proposal, inadequate as it may
> be. I have tremendous respect for the ability of tightly focussed
> private groups to investigate and publicize issues of interest to their
> supporters, but that is a quite a different function from reflecting the
> desires of a broad constituency. Adding a layer of independent
> bureaucracy such as this (well-meaning as it may be) would only further
> distance the individual user from a voice in choosing a representative.
> Diane Cabell
> Fausett, Gaeta & Lund LLP
> Boston, MA
> > >
> > > [ 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?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've advised the Board that I don't think any of the proposals for
> > > additional constituencies (including the IDNO and variations on it)
> > > have met the test of broad support. If the Board receives a
> > > for a new constituency that bears evidence of broad support among
> > > individuals (which means many more than 35 individual members, in my
> > How does this compare to the test that was applied to the initial
> > constituencies?
> > Would you be willing to share how many names in excess of 35 is
> > to be taken seriously by ICANN? And how this compares with the number
> > individuals who formed the existing DNSO constituencies?
> > It would be very unfortunate if this got to be like a NY primary
> > registration drive.
> > > view), I'll certainly advise them to consider it. The Board can
> > > act on actual proposals, though. Is there a new effort underway to
> > > organize a broad-based, open and inclusive constituency for
> > > individuals domain name holders?
> > >
> > I do not know of one. Until and unless the Board lets the rest of the
> > world in on what criteria would have to be satisfied, I doubt anyone
> > be willing to devote the time to organizing one in light of what
> > members might reasonably interpret as nearly implacable hostility to
> > concept. (I personally don't think the Board is implacably hostile to
> > concept, but I wouldn't feel able to convince many other people of
> > given the current state of play. The perception is there, it has some
> > basis in things various people have said.) And right now, even I
> think it
> > unlikely that the Board would accept any proposal for another DNSO
> > of any kind until some future time. It looks like a de facto freeze.
> > Perhaps, if and when the Board is prepared to entertain new
> > for DNSO constituencies, it could announce that fact. That might
> > the logjam.
> > [remainder of previous exchange deleted]
> > Yours &tc,
> > MF
> > --
> > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
> > 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.<--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208