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

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

Well, it's my fault for not paying much attention.     I was thinking of
a DNSO constituency (where participation on more than one constituency
is a problem)... and this is the at large voting thing.....   Sorry for
wasting bandwidth.  jl



----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Whiting" <Harold@PeterWhiting.com>
To: "James Love" <love@cptech.org>; "Rick H Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest


> At 07:44 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >Rick, it isn't that registrars or registrars are evil.  It is that
they
> >have a special constituency already.    How many times should the
> >registry/registrar interests vote?   The NCDNHC had several people
> >voting in our constituency that were doing so to protect various
> >registry or registar interests, and even people working as
consultants
> >to ICANN.    I don't think this makes ICANN look good.  Maybe we
should
> >just scrap the constituencies, and give everyone who wants one vote
for
> >the DNSO.  If you really want everyone to be treated fairly, lets
give
> >everyone exactly the same number of votes.    Jamie
> >
>
> IMO, ANYONE should be eligible for membership in the At Large
constituency.
>  We cannot exclude people from individual voting rights for arbitrary
> reasons, including who they work for or what thier business is.  This
is
> akin to not allowing a US Government employee have personal voting
rights
> because of thier employment position, that is insane.  Those people
live in
> the country too, just as Registrars and thier employees also have
personal
> interests in the workings of the internet.
>
> While we are free to disagree with whatever "position" others may take
on
> various issues, that is exactly what makes this a fair process -
everyone
> gets a vote.  As a businessman, Rick gets a vote in the Registrar's
> Constituency as well but it needs to be pointed out that that
> constituency's position on a topic is taken as a group, i.e. the
> Registrar's Constituency as a whole states a position on the topic
after
> the members of that constituency vote.  Wouldn't the At Large
Constituency
> operate in much the same manner?  After all, it is not like we are
each
> individually are getting a "vote" at ICANN, it is only the
constituency
> itself that gets representation.
>
> Perhaps I am missing something here, but it definitely seems wrong to
be
> excluding anyone for any reason, just as it would be wrong to exclude
> people that live in countries that do not "conform" to some
"standards"
> that someone arbitrarily sets.
>
> --HJW--
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rick H Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
> >To: "James Love" <love@cptech.org>
> >Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Jamie,
> >>
> >> I work for many registrars and one one too. I also have several
> >domains
> >> that have nothing to do with my registrar business and I'd like to
be
> >able
> >> to represent those interests too.
> >>
> >> Either we have to learn to cooperate or nothing will get done. I
> >support
> >> the at-large efforts and post often to the GA.
> >>
> >> I could not support any organization that removed individual
> >partipation
> >> even if one of the participants was working for a registry or
> >registrar.
> >> after all we aren't evil or something....
> >>
> >> -rick
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Love wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> Harold Whiting
>

--
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