<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws
I support diversity and yes, even imposed diversity (god help my Republican
soul...). Ken is correct about the issues impacting us becoming more
"global." As a jurisdicational matter, where you operate geographically is
of course important. However, when you consider that cross-border data
transfer rules can make you subject to a "foreign" jurisdiction's rules even
if you have no physical presence there, you immediately realize that, for
better or worse, your business is global. I do not mean to suggest that a
non geographically diverse excom is incapable of identifying and dealing
with "elephants in the room" like privacy, data retention (collection,
storage and destruction of personally identifiable information), security
and divergent internet tax regimes. However, I disagree that the presence
of an excom rep from a non North American region makes the probability of
these issues being addressed only more "likely." I believe it ensures they
will be addressed because even the most globally-minded folks I meet think
first, provincially and second, perhaps, internationally. Ross seems to me
to be a "globally sensitive" individual but I am sure he is much more
acutely aware of Canadian privacy laws just as our European compatriots are
more acutely aware of EU privacy directives than U.S. registrars.
I found it interesting that Michael's presentation on E.U. privacy directive
at the D.C. meeting appeared to be the first time theses issues were
presented to the rc with real depth... (correct me if I'm wrong about that).
While we can move forward without imposed diversity, at a minimum, we
absolutely need to get up to speed on how these global issues are affecting
us all.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@schlund.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:37 AM
To: Paul Stahura; kstubbs@digitel.net
Cc: Registrars
Subject: Re: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy
bylaws
Imposing any constrains on the election of RC officers what ever they are,
are
in my view an additional burden which makes it undully complicated to find
canditates
for such a positon at all. Especially though that the number of persons
willing to
serve as RC officer is not exactly too high anyway.
Furthermore, a for example global board is no guarantee that more global
issues are
raised, it only makes it more likely. Please don't unterstand me wrong I
would love
to see a global board but I think that regulare voting can take care of
this. If the
members decide not to stand up for their own rights/canditates it is their
own decision.
That at least is my Non-American, European, German view ;)
tom
Am 19.03.2003 schrieb Paul Stahura:
> Ken,
> I think everyone would agree on your points 1-4 below (at least you and I
> do).
> I also agree that there are small registrars who are involved, such as
> Rick's and the others you mention.
> I was not making the point that there are *some* who are involved, but
that
> in general, my impression is that larger registrars are more
involved/active
> than smaller ones, and
> probably because they are more able to be involved due to economic
reasons.
> Anyway, I was using that as an illustrative example of one of any number
of
> (stupid?)
> ways we can constrain the eligibility of who can/should be on our excom.
> By you saying:
> "ICANN has already seen fit to require this [geographic diversity] 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 ??"
> I was under the impression that you were advocating a geographic diversity
> model regarding our excom.
> Alls I'm saying is that I support more registrar involvement, diversity,
> discussion of issues (I love babies too), and
> that I do not support geographical (or other) constraints on a registrar's
> excom eligibility.
> Paul
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:56 PM
> To: Paul Stahura; Registrars
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws
>
>
> paul
>
> 1. I never stated nor implied correlation between ambivalence & what
region
> people live in
> 2. Where a registrar is Physically Located (i.e. what country) has
> significant relevance.. Registrars are much more subject to
> regulatory & judiciary bodies when they are actually situated in the
country
> (i.e. Germany & England for example) . Registrars like yours who operate
> thru re-sellers or who even directly interface with registrants in
countries
> where they are not Legally situated are much more difficult to effect
> enforcement of local regulations & laws on.
>
> I don't necessarily agree that size is a leading factor when it comes to
> involvement. Rick Wesson is a commendable example which would support my
> position here and there are many smaller registrars like Paul Wesley & Jim
> Archer who contribute on a regular basis.
>
> I am certainly not proposing models like you discuss in your closing
> sentence, what i am proposing and encouraging others in the constituency
to
> do is:
>
> 1. get more involved
> 2. insist that your specific issues be "aired"
> 3. encourage enhanced communication by having regular teleconferences
(like
> every 3-4 weeks) & make sure the teleconference time slots are equitably
> apportioned
> 4. encourage more dialogues on regional issues (soon to be inter-regional
> issues) like VAT & EU privacy initiatives (and the upcoming USA sales tax
> issues soon to rise to the top as well)
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Stahura <mailto:stahura@enom.com>
> To: Registrars <mailto:Registrars@dnso.org>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:05 AM
> To: Paul Stahura; Registrars
> Cc: Elana Broitman
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws
>
>
> 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 -----
> From: Paul Stahura <mailto:stahura@enom.com>
> To: 'Ken Stubbs' <mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net> ; Registrars
> <mailto:Registrars@dnso.org>
> Cc: Elana Broitman <mailto:ebroitman@register.com>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 7:55 AM
> To: Registrars
> Cc: Elana Broitman
> Subject: [registrars] Diversity & the new Proposed Constituancy bylaws
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
Gruss,
tom
(__)
(OO)_____
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|