[IFWP] Re: non-commercial.
Randy and all, Randy Bush wrote: > As you can realize, what I propose, includes a new admission critera: > adding to the condition that have to have a domain name, also have to have > an operative website and/operative e-mail address using such Internet > Domain Name but this is the _domain_name_ holders' constituency, not a web site or email operators' constituency. Good point Randy! >;) Although I believe you saying this is jest possibly? >;) None the less you make a good point, even if that was not your intent. There is a constituency of propose one anyway for these folks, it is called the IDNO (Individual domain name owners)... http://www.idno.org > Well..in this part I exclude the statement where organizations that use > web for commercial activity even when their other activities are > non-commercial because as I stated in the e-mail I wrote: exists > charitable organizations that organize sells of articles and they can do > it via internet in order to get funds to do charity. In such cases like > this one, common sense is needed. hmmm. to use a us analogy, you are worried about the school which runs a bake sale. I agree with Vany that common sense is needed. That is why most countries have a system by which to embody those common sense ideas or rules. It is commonly called a "Legal System" or "Legal Structure". And as such they are quite naturally made up of a system of things called "LAWS", which are in and of themselves the actual embodiment of those very common sense ideas or rules. >;) Now as to your point Randy, I will use an example. My oldest daughter goes to a private school, they have bake sales, candy sales, flea markets, and all manner of things of this nature to raise money for certain school special trips, and other in school facilities. This IS commercial activity, and as such disqualifies them as a NON-COMMERCIAL educational facility. Therefore, although they have their own Domain Name and many E-mail addresses, >;), they cannot qualify legally as a NON-COMMERCIAL entity and therefore it follows that they are not reasonably eligible for membership to the NCDNHC. :( BTW they annually generate over $400k in revenue from these activities! >;) randy --- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, -- 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. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair - Amadeu non-germain comments..
Amadeau and all, Ok Amadeu, I have read several exchanges between you and Mark Langston, and I see some serious problems in both tone and substance on your part. (See more specifics below).. Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote: > Mark C. Langston wrote: > [..] > > > Were any of those members actually there at the behest of their > > respective constituencies, officially representing the will of the > > constituencies? Was there one such individual from each > > constituency? > > > Mark, > > To be short and polite: each consituenct us free to carry its business as they > prefer, unless this creates problems to the DNSO. First of all Mark was not referring to each "Constituent" but each "Constituency" the difference between the two is striking... Second, in either case, be it "Each Constituent" or "Each Constituency", there can be NO exceptions as to how a Constituent or a Constituency conducts it's business as it refers to the DNSO per se, as the Constituent or a Constituency are self determined entities by the definition. Hence whether or not the DNSO "Likes" the manner in which either a Constituent or a Constituency conducts it's business is not Germane or for that matter, relevant in any proper or reasonable context. > > > Pleae provide any evidence of a single complaint within any constituency > regarding the question yu raise. If they felt representedd, and have no > complaint, so should you be, Mark. > [...] > > > "each recognized constituency" meaning from the ccTLD, commercial/business, > > gTLD, ISP, registrar, and TM/IP constituencies. > > > > Even if someone somehow managed to find people meeting all those criteria > > from the other constituencies, there was no one there from the gTLD > > constituency, by your own admission. > > > > The bylaw does not state, "except for those who don't feel like > > participating." > > Hell, Mark, you're happy not to be one of my law students ;-)) I am sure he is, and are many of us. Many people prefer to learn from someone that is adequately knowledgeable, you appear not to have the proper knowledge by which one could learn much, judging from this post >;) > > > Your interpretation leads to absolute unilateral veto power for each and every > consituency by simply not "nominating" reps in the sense you imply. This could > not be more antithetic to the whole DNSO and ICANN history, tradition and rules. It is a shame that your interpretation is both invalid here and again not adequately germane as well, irrespective of context. > > > Arfumentaton ad absurdum, no matter how well constructed, is the first thing > law studnets learn to escape from. I guess this could also apply here. Yes it could. A shame that you have yet to learn them adequately. > > > Best regards, > > Amadeu, writing his last mail of the day to GA (self-imposed "nosie reduction" >mesure) Regards, -- 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. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair
Javier and all, Right! And as there is no "NC" yet only a pNC, as the "NC" must be elected any recommendations sent from any Working Groups as they now stand are invalid... The "NC" is an ELECTED body or group, not an appointed one Javier SOLA wrote: > >As long as we're being stickers for the bylaws, may I also ask why Working > >Groups are making any recommendations the ICANN board (which is incomplete, > >unelected, interim and unnacountable, by the way) on issues without > >representation of the non-commercial constituency. Further, the other > >constituencies are only provisionally recognized by ICANN until they "amend > >their proposals to address deficiencies noted by the Board." > > >From the ICANN Board Berlin resolution... > > "FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Names Council representatives chosen by the > provisionally recognized Constituencies shall constitute the provisional > Names Council, with all the powers set forth in the Bylaws other than the > selection of Directors (pursuant to Section 2(e) of Article VI-B of the > Bylaws), which selection powers will be deferred until such time as the > Board determines it has made sufficient final recognitions. " > > The Working groups do not make recommendations to the ICANN Board, it is > the Names Council who makes them, after receiving reports from working > groups if they have created them. > > >The lack of a fully constituted Name Council with non-commercial > >representation and the provisional status of the remaining constituencies > >*invalidates* all the recommendations of the working groups. > > Besides the fact that there are non-commercial observers in the Names > Council, non-commercial representatives participate as full members of all > working groups, without any limitation in number, all those who have > expressed an interest are in the WGs... where is the problem? > > Javier Regards, -- 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. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair - Sola falsely accuses, and than "Shades" the Truth himself...
Javier "Generalisimo" Sola, and all, GOTCHA! (See more below) Javier SOLA wrote: > Anthony, > > >However there seems to be no problem for the NC to impose a UDRP on the > >entire world with barely a nod to looking at whether this achieved any > >consensus within the General Assembly, which is the yardstick by which > >recommendations should be measured, according to the the DNSO bylaws. > > Following the procedure established by the bylaws, the report has been made > public in the DNSO website for comment by anybody who wishes to do it. The > truth is that we have not seen many comments (the ones received have been > taken very seriously and the most relevant opposing comments are attached > to the report). This is patently untrue. I sent in several comments, and there were not included. This is indicative of you FALSE reporting and than turning it around on someone else as an excuse for the DNSO pNC not doing it's job an properly Archiving comments to relevant documents. This also is a part of the public record, BTW > > > It is easy to complain about lack of consensus. It would be much more > productive to actually participate in the process and comment on the > documents instead of figuring out new ways to meausure consensus that only > complicate the system. Measuring consensus is not difficult at all, you only refuse to do so, hence you than make statements like this one that are inaccurate, and a blatant attempt to obviscate. This too is also on record as well > > > You had the oportunity to comment and you did not. > > > We > >know that a bare majority of NC members read the GA list. I have seen > >nothing articulated about how to measure a consensus within the General > >Assembly. > > Members of the constitunecies are, so far, the largest part of the GA. They > have two ways of participating in the decision making process, either using > the GA list, or through their constituencies. The Names Council not only > receives input from the GA, it also receives it from the constituencies, > completing the picture. You cannot use the GA list as a meausure of the > desires of the GA. > > >Names Council members who vote for these recommendations from > >hastily-arranged working groups are actually doing the positions they > >support a serious disservice. The recommendations will be discredited in > >not too long a time - not necessarily because the recommendations themselves > >are bad, but because the process of the working groups (too hasty), and more > >especially the behavior of the Names Council (defensive, autocratic, and in > >violation of the bylaws), will tarnish them badly. > > You know quite well that the pNC has at no point violated the bylaws. BS Generalisimo. > > > I understand that it is against the interest of your organization that the > NC works at all, but be assured that open lies and flames will not help > your cause. FIrst off, which is it the NC or the pNC? Or is this wishful thinking on your part? Second, you are the one putting out flames and flame bait in this instance by knowing "Shading the Truth"!! > > > Javier Regards, -- 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. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: Selecting the IETF Candidates ...
Make and all,
Mike Roberts wrote:
> In the interests of clarification of Karl's post, see comments
> below:
>
> > Given the general duty of ICANN Board members (see Karl Auerbach's
> > note of 25 Apr 1999, Re: suggested change to PSO draft)
>
> It remains true that board members have a fiduciary (incredibly high and
> strong) obligation to protect ICANN above all other things. (Concern for
> the Internet comes only indirectly insofar as it might happen to align, or
> not, with the interests of the corporation called ICANN at any particular
> moment.)
>
> Based on that, ICANN's legal counsel has since indicated that ICANN feels
> that there are no limitations on the powers of the ICANN board to reach in
> to and modify the activities, policies, or work product of any Supporting
> Organization, including the PSO.
>
> The language to the contrary in the ICANN by-laws is apparently simply
> meaningless window dressing.
>
> --karl--
>
>
> The Board members of a non-profit corporation have a duty to promote
> the purposes of the corporation and may be held liable under certain
> circumstances for failing to do so.
Agreed strongly. However this does not seem to be a direct conflict
with karls comments (See above). In addition I must add that thus
fare we have on the public record, from yourself, Joe Sims, and
Esther Dyson statements, actions, and indications that you indeed have
proceeded in a manner that will hold the ICANN and liable, in that you
and the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board HAVE acted in direct violation of
the ICANN bylaws, the MoU and the White Paper...
>
>
> The relevant purpose sections of the ICANN Articles of Incorporation
> are noted below. They are derived directly from the U.S. Government's
> White Paper policy statement on privatization of certain Internet
> technical management functions, and they are limited and discreet.
> They are also heavily aligned with the interests of the Internet,
> as specifically noted.
>
> ICANN's counsel has neither said nor suggested that ICANN Directors,
> individually or collectively, would take any actions not consistent
> with these articles of incorporation.
Again, we have "ON RECORD" several statements from Joe Sims
specifically that you or contention here is inaccurate.
>
>
> With specific respect to the PSO Memorandum of Understanding, it is
> a document having legal force which binds the parties which have
> signed it. The document was discussed very extensively through
> multiple drafts by POISED and the final version was approved
> by the standard chair's determination of rough consensus in Oslo.
"Rough Consensus" doesn't cut it Mike, and you know it doesn't.
If that Consensus is not measurable it is not legally binding and therefore
is invalid. Besides how many folks that are long standing members of
the IETF that did not attend at Oslo, get a opportunity to VOTE on this
issue? My guess is none...
>
> Any material deviation from the obligations undertaken by the
> parties to the PSO MOU would be cause for termination of the
> agreement.
The problem is that the "PSO MOU" is not valid..
>
>
> I believe that these "writings down" of generally held views are
> more than adequate protection for reasonable people attempting to
> accomplish reasonable objectives in support of the Internet.
Agreed. But very few reasonable were consulted or can even be
accurately documented as to their opinion or position...
>
>
> - Mike Roberts
> Interim CEO, ICANN
>
> --
>
> "The Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the
> charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government
> and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of
> the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical
> parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;
> (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the
> Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing
> functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system
> ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the
> circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root
> system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root
> server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in
> furtherance of items (i) through (iv).
>
> The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as
> a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles
> of international law and applicable international conventions and local law
> and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its
> Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and
> open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation
> shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organ
[IFWP] Re: Selecting the IETF candidates for ICANN PSO positions
Donald and all, I believe that community involvement from the start is VERY important contrary to Donalds comment. Without community involvement from the Bottom-up, we just propagate the status quo, which is perceived, now, and will be even more so in the future as being inadequate. Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: > At one time, it was believed that ICANN would be special. In fact, I > originally understood that the Protocol Council would just plain be > the IAB or perhpas the IAB with two or three additional people > representing other standards bodies so that selection of the protocol > SO members of the ICANN Board would be pretty much the normal IETF > selection of liaisons by the IAB. Thus ICANN would be a venue for > coordination between protocol, domain name, and addresssing issues, a > natural communications point one could say. > > But, as ICANN has changed under political pressure, it has already > become the case that the IETF is only 25% of the protocol council and > has no assurance of any representation whatsoever on the Board. If > the same criterion, be they right or wrong, continue to be applied for > protocol SO organization membership, the IETF will be completely lost > in the crowd of other standards groups. > > If there is to be a communications point between Internet protocols, > domain names, and addressing, I don't think that it exists in the > present ICANN mechanisms. (I think it is important and people should > be giving some thought as to how to add it to ICANN or create it > ouside of ICANN.) > > Under these circumstances, I agree with Eric Brunner and don't see any > reason for appointment of ICANN PSO representatives to be other than > by the usual IAB selection of external liaisons. Further, I don't see > any reason not to use that mechanism for Board candidates. Given the > PSO membership, if the IETF actually wants to influence PSO Board > members, it may be a lot more important how politically acceptable a > candidate is to the ITU or the W3C than if they are favored by the > IETF community. > > This really seems like an IAB external liaison job, not a nomcom IETF > community opinion job. > > Thanks, > Donald > > From: Eric Brunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 09:54:51 -0400 > To: Erik Huizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Erik, > > > >A considerable fraction of our collective acts of selection do not > >involve the nomcom, and the task at hand may be less difficult to > >accomplish than chairing a working group. > > > >I personally favor the IAB selection proposal and hope to keep our > >selection process (nomcom) an arm's length from external issues, in > >the context you carefully delimited ... ICANN PSO not ICANN Board. > > > >Given the general duty of ICANN Board members (see Karl Auerbach's > >note of 25 Apr 1999, Re: suggested change to PSO draft), I can't yet > >agree, or disagree with alternatives to your concluding para on the > >distinct issue of mechanism(s) for the selection of candidates for > >the ICANN Board. > > > >Eric > > > >At 09:38 AM 8/5/99 +0200, Erik Huizer wrote: > >>I have seen little discussion on this, slightly in favor of the PSO > >>council members be chosen from amidst IAB members, but not enough for > >>me to judge rough consensus. Sine the alternative suggested is NOMCOM > >>selection, let me re-itterate my own proposal that received no comments > >>(positive or negative) that I am aware of, and that does seem to strike > >>a good compromise. > >> > >>I send to this list the following on this topic: > >> > >>1) We like to have the officers within ICANN PSO selected through > >>the nomcom process. > >>2) We would also like to see that the protocol > >>council do as little as possible and that it does not go out shopping > >>for work. > >>3) We also like to give sufficient cloud to the council candidates and > >>we > >>like them to be aware of the current IETF issues. > >>4) We don't want to burden the nomcom with finding even more people > >>for more functions. > >> > >>So 1) argues for nomcom selected candidates, while 2,3 and 4 argue for > >>IAB members taking the two PSO council slots. > >> > >>So here's my engineers proposal: > >> > >>Currently the voting members of the IAB are nominated by the nomcom. > >>These members are nominated "at-large" without any specific functions. > >>I propose we change this slightly. We keep the same total amount of > >>voting IAB members but assign two of those specifically with the task > >>of being the IETF nominated PSO council members. The nomcom appoints > >>these IAB members as well as the other voting IAB members. So it is > >>the nomcom that decides which IAB member is also PSO council member. > >> > >>This way we satisfy 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. > >> > >>I realise we have a bootstrap problem, but it should not be too > >>difficult to find a solution to that
Re: [IFWP] Public space
At 07:33 PM 8/6/99 +, Kerry Miller wrote: >You *can't* keep law out of cyberspace, and most people don't >want to. The issue is *whose* law -- ideally, that of those governed >by it, on a mostly local basis. Whats wrong with the laws that got us to 2 million users? How brokem can they be ? This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
[IFWP] Report from Geneva, 25 July 1998 (was: Internet stability
Isnt it interesting how little actually changes in real time? Could it be that, regardless of our ideological differences, we're _ineffective_? http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/199808/msg00026.html Report from the Front Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems by Ronda Hauben There is a battle being waged today, one that is of great importance to the future of society, but most people have no idea it is taking place. I just returned from Geneva, Switzerland where a meeting was held Friday July 25 and Saturday July 26 to create the organization that Ira Magaziner, advisor to the U.S. President, has called for. It is an organization to privatize key aspects of the Internet, the Domain Name System (DNS) and the control of the root server of the Internet. The meeting was the second in a series that are part of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) (1). The U.S. government, without discussion by the U.S. Congress, the press or the public, and contrary to the direction of the U.S. court (in the case ACLU vrs. Reno) is throwing a bone to the private sector and offering them the possibility of making their millions off of the Internet. And while in Geneva, I saw folks from several different countries grabbing at the bone, in hopes of getting themselves some of the same kind of exorbitant profits from selling gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) that the National Science Foundation (NSF) bestowed on Network Services Inc (NSI) several years ago by giving them the contract enabling them to charge for domain name registration. There is money to be made, or so these folks seem to think, and so any concern for the well being of the Internet or its continued development as "a new medium of international communication" (ACLU vrs Reno) has been thrown to the wind by Mr. Magaziner, IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) under the direction of Mr. Postel, which has the U.S. government contract to administer the Internet Addresses and Names and to administer the root server, and the others who, without any ethical considerations or social obligations are rushing through this process and squelching discussion and dissent. It is called "consensus" we are told. I went to the session setting up the Names Registry Council provisions for the bylaws of what we are told is to be the new private organization controlling these key aspects of the Internet. At the beginning of the meeting, I made the mistake of objecting when all were asked to register their consensus with the provision for a Names Council. I wanted to hear some discussion so I would know what I was voting on. I was scolded by one participant for asking for a discussion. He claimed that they were *not* here for people who had not read the bylaws proposal that appeared online only a few days before. I had read the bylaws proposal but was naive enough to think that one would hear discussion and clarification before being asked to declare one's adherence. In that way I thought one would know what one was agreeing to. Instead, however, I soon learned that that was *not* how business (or really religion) was being developed in the session I attended. After harassing me for asking for clarification and discussion, the meeting continued. The Chairman asked people to brainstorm and list the functions for the council. When I asked that the activities of the council be reported online and that there be online discussion with anyone interested being allowed to comment on all issues concerning the council, the scribe miswrote what I had proposed. When I asked it be corrected, I was told by the Chair that there was no "wordsmithing" allowed, i.e. that it would not be corrected. After a number of people had listed functions for the council, it was announced that the meeting would vote on the functions to determine if there was "consensus". Then a vote was rammed through on the items. However, instead of counting the numbers for or against each function, there was a declaration of "consensus" if, we were told, it seemed as if there were 60% of those voting who had voted for the listed function. For the first few functions those opposed were allowed to voice their objection. The meeting was being tape recorded, we were told, and there would be a record kept of it. But that soon ended as someone in the room objected to hearing any objections. The Chair said that this was how this was done at the telecom meetings he knew of, as there the players were large corporations with large bank accounts that could afford big law suits. Here, however, it seemed those in control of the meeting judged this was not the case. A short break was called. After the break it was announced that those with objections could no longer voice them on the record during the meeting but were told to come up after the meeting was over.
[IFWP] Public space
>From Europe-online, 26 Aug 1998 http://www.isys.hu/online-europe/current/0440.html > ASPEN, Colorado (Wired) - "Why should public values not have a > role?," asks Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig about the > building of the Internet. A keynote speaker at the "Aspen Summit > 98," sponsored by Newt Gingrich's Progress and Freedom Foundation, > Lessig acknowledged that "it would be a disaster for [members of] > the government to become code writers But the Constitution > should have some effect on [the architecture of the Internet]." > > Lessig says the Internet rises above purely private enterprise to > "world- building." He wants values to be protected and suggests not > to do so will help erode confidence in government. Dissenting is > John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Larry > wants to make cyberspace safe for law. I want to keep law out of > cyberspace." Declan's reaction on the POLITECH list: At 09.50 am 8/25/98 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: > I'm often skeptical of calls for "public values," since those who > talk about them may have different values than I do. But that > aside, Lessig's proposal (as I understand it) would seem to work in > two ways: individuals who construct the Net's architecture changing > their minds of their own free will. > > Or the government would force Internet architectural changes > supposedly "to comply with the Constitution" through law and > regulation -- so long IETF -- a move that would likely in itself > violate the Constitution. So if a technology becomes popular > enough, clue-impaired Congressfolks and corporate lobbyists get to > dictate standards? No thanks. > > Besides, last I checked, even the Constitution is just a local > ordinance online. > >-Declan You *can't* keep law out of cyberspace, and most people don't want to. The issue is *whose* law -- ideally, that of those governed by it, on a mostly local basis. It is not possible to be value-free, nor is it posssible to be law-free when there is more than one player. (I think Lessig is trying to say that as long as you have architecture, you have values. And as long as you have code, you have architecture. So let's see what values the architectures are implementing, explicilty, and deal with them.) The goal is for the laws to be agreed upon by the maximum proportion of players. That's why local laws are often best, because people who like one or the other style of law can cluster there. And people who don't like one cluster can create their own. But let's not kid ourselves that there aren't some universal public values. Last I heard, freedom is one such public value; another is truth; and a third is choice - a.k.a. competition, among companies *and* among systems of governance/laws. And, yes, let's recognize that even freedom is not absolute when one person's freedom clashes with another's. Face it, folks, no rules can avoid all conflict and no-rules creates conflicts where the bad guys often win. Esther Dyson
[IFWP] Larry Irving to Leave NTIA (fwd
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:08:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Kevin Taglang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:Larry Irving to Leave NTIA Wednesday, August 4, 1999 Contact: Morrie Goodman (202) 482-4883 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS LARRY IRVING TO LEAVE COMMERCE WASHINGTON-- Larry Irving, assistant secretary of Commerce for Telecommunications and Information, will leave the Commerce Department post at the end of the summer, Commerce Secretary William M. Daley announced today. Irving will be succeeded by Gregory L. Rohde, Senior Legislative Assistant to Democratic Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota. Irving, the first African American to head the Commerce Department agency, was appointed by President Clinton in 1993. He played a major role in the Administration's efforts to bring about the most sweeping reform of U.S. telecommunications law in 60 years, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He was also a key proponent within the Clinton-Gore Administration of policies designed to promote diversity in the commercial broadcast arena and to increase opportunities for minorities and women in the emerging digital economy. Secretary Daley, in accepting Irving's resignation, said: "Larry has been a tremendous asset to the Department of Commerce. He has been a master at crafting the Administration's telecommunications policy in a way that the resulting vast economic benefits will be accessible to Americans from all walks of life. I wish him well in his future endeavors." During his six-year tenure at the Commerce Department, Irving earned a reputation as an international leader in telecommunications and information policy. He worked to open foreign markets to the U.S. telecommunications industry, secure better protection for consumers and open up advanced telecommunications services to rural and other underserved areas of the country. A member of the Clinton-Gore Administration's technology team, Irving played a major role in the Administration's initiatives to promote Electronic Commerce and the Information Superhighway. Most recently, Irving initiated a landmark Federal Government survey, "The Digital Divide: Falling Through the Net," which showed more Americans than ever have become connected to computers, telephones and the Internet, while the gap between information "haves" and "have nots" has widened significantly. The report recommended that pro-competition policies and initiatives aimed at increasing Internet access be pursued to close the digital divide. Irving's successor, Gregory Rohde has served as Senator Dorgan's chief policy advisor on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which includes technology and telecommunications issues. He has contributed to significant legislation including, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Before joining Senator Dorgan's staff, he served as a Team Coordinator for the Health Care Financing Administration on the Transition team for the Clinton-Gore Administration. === August 4, 1999 PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES GREGORY L. ROHDE AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release August 4, 1999 PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES GREGORY L. ROHDE AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The President today announced the nomination of Gregory L. Rohde as Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce. Mr. Gregory Rohde, of North Dakota, has served as Senior Legislative Assistant for United States Senator Byron L. Dorgan since 1993. He also serves as chief policy advisor for all areas of jurisdiction under the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which includes telecommunications, transportation, science, space, and technology issues. Mr. Rohde has contributed to significant legislation including the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provided for comprehensive reform of all aspects of the telecommunications and media industries, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which provides a moratorium on state and local taxation of electronic commerce. In 1992, Mr. Rohde directed the Nicholas Spaeth for Governor campaign in the state of North Dakota. From 1988 to 1992, he served as Legislative Assistant to then Representative Byron L. Dorgan. Mr. Rohde received a Bachelor of Science in Education from North Dakota State University and a Bachelor of Sacred Theology from Catholic University of America in 1988. The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information serves as the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The Assistant Secretary is responsible for formulating policies supporting the development and growth of telecommunications, information and related industries; furthering t
[IFWP] Re: Internet stability
> For example, I know very little about how my local > water or electricity is served to me. Should I know more about it? > Perhaps. But that would take quite a bit of time, and leave me with > much less time to study these issues. Even if I were to devote my > life to studying policy issues, would I have enough time to study all > of them sufficiently so that if it came time for me to decide what > 'governance' I wanted, I would make the 'right' choices? > Sheerly by coincidence, I dare say, you state the rationale for collective organization. By yourself, *studying everything you need or want to know does indeed take all your time -- and then some. But get together with a bunch, all of whom are interested in the topic, who readily share their experiences, and who talk about and act on the issues (be they water or electricity supply or governance and representation) in their normal conduct, and soon you have a what is called an informed populace (sometimes even "public") without one minute having to be spent "studying" any of it. Call it open-source society if you like, but many hands make light work -- and I recommend this business model to the .car folks who want to compete with AOL. kerry
[IFWP] Fwd: Comment to Suggested Revised Bylaws
FYI -- A copy of my comments to the ICANN proposed bylaw changes. -- Bret = - - - - - - - - - - F O R W A R D - - - - - - - - - - = Suggestions and comments follow each of the quoted revisions... >RESOLVED, that Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the >Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: > >"The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance with >Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency recognized by the >Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. Any >dispute about whether any such representative is a proper member of the NC >shall be resolved by, or at the direction of, the Board." Suggestion: Change the phrase "is a proper member of the NC" to "was elected in accord with Section 3 of this Article." Reason: I think the suggested change better captures what was intended, as any NC representative duly elected in accord with the procedures and specifications of Article 3 should be considered a "proper member." As currently worded, the phrase "proper member" is undefined and, accordingly, potentially provides too much enforcement discretion to the Board. >FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the >Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: > >"Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent that >Constituency on the NC, no two of which may be, except with the consent of >the Board, residents of the same Geographic Region, as defined in Article >V, Section 6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Constituency may have more >representatives on the NC than there are members of the Constituency. >Nominations within each Constituency may be made by any member of the >Constituency, but no such member may make more than one nomination in any >single Constituency." Suggestion: Delete the phrase ",except with the consent of the Board," on the Geographic representation requirement. Reason: There are no bounds around the Board's ability to accept or reject a lack of geographic diversity in a constituency. The geographic diversity element should either be enforced or scrapped, but leaving it open to potentially arbitrary enforcement is unacceptable. It's a big world though. If a constituency cannot find diverse representatives, then they should live with fewer NC representatives until such time as their constituency is more broadly populated. I would like to see ICANN enforce the current bylaws. In the alternative, I would suggest amending the language to provide a guide on how the Board would exercise its discretion. Better language would be: ", except upon good cause shown by the members of the constituency that meeting the geographic diversity requirement is impracticable at the present time. In the event that a constituency petitions the Board for an exception to the geographic diversity requirement, it shall, at the same time, present the Board with a detailed plan and timetable for increasing global outreach to diversify its constituency prior to the next scheduled Names Council election." >FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws of the >Corporation is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: > >"Unless shorterned by the Board in its recognition of a Constituency, the >term of office for each member of the NC shall be two years, subject to >earlier removal by the Constituency that selected such member or by a >three-fourths majority vote of all members of the Board." Suggestion: Delete the phrase "or by a three-fourths majority of all members of the Board." Reason: If constituencies are to self-form and self-organize, they alone should have the authority to elect and retain their representatives. A Board veto, even at the proposed "super-majority" level, defeats this purpose. The mere ability to threaten to reject a NC member alters the balance of power and dilutes a constituency's influence. -- Bret Fausett
[IFWP] Rep Dewine (R-Ohio) and Rep Kohl (D-Wisconsin) letters to NSI/ICANN/Commerce
Anyone have the full text of these letters and could possible post them? I have seen references to them in the last 24 hours, including one area that particularly interested me : "ICANN must remain focused on its core mission--ensuring competition in domain name registrations, and maintaining uniform and efficient technical standards for the operation of the Internet," the senators wrote. Also there was criticism of ICANN for not electing a "permanent board of directors representative of the Internet Community." I'd like to see the full text if anyone has located it. -- William X. Walsh General Manager, DSo Internet Services Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 (IDNO MEMBER) Support the Cyberspace Association, the constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
