Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Kent and all, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:33:49AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > > > >The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and > > >fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist, > > >non-democratic and not transparant. > > > > AhBUT *YOU* Onno see fit to propagate Ascencios lies about NSI. BUT > > no, since you are for the ISOC, ITU, European socialist model of the world > > that is permissible. > > What lies? So far as I can see, Asensio has very carefully hewed > the line. For example, statements like > > "...unauthorized use of US government property by a government > contractor is a serious offense. NSOL's willingness to take such a > dangerous risk , especially during the difficult ongoing price > negotiations for the provisional registry, may indicate that it has > exhausted all other tactics to delay the scheduled termination of > its entire domain name government contract." > > are *very* carefully worded. > (quote from http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990412/ny_asensio_1.html) And you picked a very bad example here Kent. The term "MAY" in the sentence "NSOL's willingness to take such a dangerous risk , especially during the difficult ongoing price negotiations for the provisional registry, may indicate that it has exhausted all other tactics to delay the scheduled termination of its entire domain name government contract.", should be a dead giveaway. As the term/word "MAY" is making a supposition. As such it is a guess at BEST, and therefore on it's face is a LIE as stated... > > > Of course, I have read all Mr Asensio's releases with great interest, > and I would be delighted to engage in a nice, constructive, public > debate with you or anyone about the content. I don't see any lies Please get an Eye Examination and re-read the quote that you used, as well as my outlining it CLEARLY why what Mr Asensio's is and has been saying. However as you amongst some others seem to be out to get NSOL for some reason, it is easy to understand you assertion here... > > at all. > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams 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
RE: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
I thought that copy looked familiar. D Schutt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kent Crispin Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18 On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:33:49AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > >The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and > >fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist, > >non-democratic and not transparant. > > AhBUT *YOU* Onno see fit to propagate Ascencios lies about NSI. BUT > no, since you are for the ISOC, ITU, European socialist model of the world > that is permissible. What lies? So far as I can see, Asensio has very carefully hewed the line. For example, statements like "...unauthorized use of US government property by a government contractor is a serious offense. NSOL's willingness to take such a dangerous risk , especially during the difficult ongoing price negotiations for the provisional registry, may indicate that it has exhausted all other tactics to delay the scheduled termination of its entire domain name government contract." are *very* carefully worded. (quote from http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990412/ny_asensio_1.html) Of course, I have read all Mr Asensio's releases with great interest, and I would be delighted to engage in a nice, constructive, public debate with you or anyone about the content. I don't see any lies at all. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:33:49AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: > > > >The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and > >fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist, > >non-democratic and not transparant. > > AhBUT *YOU* Onno see fit to propagate Ascencios lies about NSI. BUT > no, since you are for the ISOC, ITU, European socialist model of the world > that is permissible. What lies? So far as I can see, Asensio has very carefully hewed the line. For example, statements like "...unauthorized use of US government property by a government contractor is a serious offense. NSOL's willingness to take such a dangerous risk , especially during the difficult ongoing price negotiations for the provisional registry, may indicate that it has exhausted all other tactics to delay the scheduled termination of its entire domain name government contract." are *very* carefully worded. (quote from http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990412/ny_asensio_1.html) Of course, I have read all Mr Asensio's releases with great interest, and I would be delighted to engage in a nice, constructive, public debate with you or anyone about the content. I don't see any lies at all. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
> >> No definition of who are members and who are not? No exchange of > >> dues for a certificate, even if only a card, giving me the rights of > >> a member? No defined process for electing representatives of the > >> membership to the organization's management? No, my friend. I don't > >> play those games. > > The rights of members are granted both by California law and by the corporate bylaws. They are not based on contract although the MAC may recommend a contract as well for some issues that are not covered adequately by law, e.g., the use of member personal data. In addition, contracts do not require an exchange of money to be valid. They can be valid because of an exchange of promises or because of the behavior of the parties. Members will get an ID code (under the MAC recommendation) and a clear process for electing representatives has been proposed although we are still working out details of a cumulative voting procedure. Diane Cabell MAC
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
drop his name into a meta search engine and look at what comes out. on the mac with OS8.5 this meta search engine is called sherlock and comes with the OS. I didn't save the url... basically he's a geek at a dutch university. >At 01:38 AM 4/12/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Translate, please, or put in onno's URL -- I don't have it -- so we can >glean out what your meaning is here. :-) > >Bill Lovell > > >>I just took a look at onno's home page. I see i just flamed the sascha >>ignatovic of holland... unfortunate waste of everyones time apologies >>extended. >> >>The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- >>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See >>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, >>how to >>subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at >>http://www.cookreport.com >> >> >> >> The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
RE: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Words Of Onno Hovers: > The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and > fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist, > non-democratic and not transparant. > And now the same people are attacking the ICANN for not being > elitist enough. I cannot understand what is wrong with a membership > that is totally open and democratic. The Membership Committee has > done an excellent work, IMO. Yes, I agree.
RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 12:30 AM 4/12/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 11:08 PM 4/11/99 , Bill Lovell wrote: Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to ICANN. >>> >>>A tax on websites is insane. A membership fee is rational. >>> >>"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word >>would smell as sweet." Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, II.1.85-86. > > >Does a member who pays no membership >fee have any standing? Any recourse? > >Jay. Don't ask me. I'm just floating the balloon; the winds of discourse shall come from elsewhere. Bill Lovell
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
I just took a look at onno's home page. I see i just flamed the sascha ignatovic of holland... unfortunate waste of everyones time apologies extended. The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them, >>but most of >> them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic >>body; not a >> selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to >>serve on the >> Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by a Nominating >>Committee. I >> think membership should be fee-based, but our study indicates that >>adjusting fees >> for developing nations ends up costing more than it brings in. No matter >>what, I >> do not want to see an ICANN operating at a deficit. > >The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and >fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist, >non-democratic and not transparant. AhBUT *YOU* Onno see fit to propagate Ascencios lies about NSI. BUT no, since you are for the ISOC, ITU, European socialist model of the world that is permissible. >And now the same people are attacking the ICANN for not being >elitist enough. I cannot understand what is wrong with a membership >that is totally open and democratic. The Membership Committee has >done an excellent work, IMO. > ah yes Onno if one is so open minded as to let ones brains fall out one might make such a surmise. On the otherhand if one observed the behavior of ICANN and looked at the by laws one would see that the membership is the only group that might hold ICANN accounatble. So what has ICANN done...created a totally open membership group by means of which it can stack the deck and vote in the head of every PTT in europe...to join hans on the ICANN board yes onno I am more than a little disgusted with your self serving diatribes. >-- >Onno Hovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 11:08 PM 4/11/99 , Bill Lovell wrote: >>>Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to ICANN. >> >>A tax on websites is insane. A membership fee is rational. >> >"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word >would smell as sweet." Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, II.1.85-86. Does a member who pays no membership fee have any standing? Any recourse? Jay. >Bill Lovell >>[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] >>"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security >>will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" >> --Thomas Jefferson >
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 01:38 AM 4/12/99 -0400, you wrote: Translate, please, or put in onno's URL -- I don't have it -- so we can glean out what your meaning is here. :-) Bill Lovell >I just took a look at onno's home page. I see i just flamed the sascha >ignatovic of holland... unfortunate waste of everyones time apologies >extended. > >The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- >431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See >(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html >[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to >subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com > > > >
RE: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
> Words Of Onno Hovers: > > > The IFWP list is full of professional nay-sayers, bitchers and > > fruitcakes. First the ICANN was attacked for being elitist, > > non-democratic and not transparant. > > And now the same people are attacking the ICANN for not being > > elitist enough. I cannot understand what is wrong with a membership > > that is totally open and democratic. The Membership Committee has > > done an excellent work, IMO. > > Yes, I agree. Reading this back I realize that I missed a serious point. I meant that I agreed that the MAC did quite a lot of good work. I dis-agree with some of the conclusions, however. But, it may be an adequate compromise, should the holes be plugged. To the point, it is incomplete. But, I don't want to denigrate the excellent effort that went into it. I just don't see sufficient evidence of completion there.
RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 10:23 PM 4/11/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 06:19 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote: >>At 05:56 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote: >> >> >>Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to ICANN. > >A tax on websites is insane. A membership fee is rational. > "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet." Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, II.1.85-86. Bill Lovell >[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] >"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security >will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" > --Thomas Jefferson
RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 06:19 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote: >At 05:56 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote: > >[Big snips all around] > >>So do I. However, even the most wealthy would not part with that princely >>sum without a reason to do so. > >>I see that you are taking things to heart. >> >>> No definition of who are members and who are not? No exchange of >>> dues for a certificate, even if only a card, giving me the rights of >>> a member? No defined process for electing representatives of the >>> membership to the organization's management? No, my friend. I don't >>> play those games. >> >>Games is exactly what they are, because the membership would have no legal >>power. > >Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to ICANN. A tax on websites is insane. A membership fee is rational. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" --Thomas Jefferson
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Richard J. Sexton a écrit: > I aleays take the opposite view. Long after the short term pain > has worn off you get to live for a long time with something > that's right. Thanks, Richard. A sound bit of philosophy. It's usually best to go to the dentist and have the bad tooth out. But some people will keep taking aspirin and hoping it'll go away, until it absceses and they have to have their head amputated.
RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 05:56 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote: [Big snips all around] >So do I. However, even the most wealthy would not part with that princely >sum without a reason to do so. >I see that you are taking things to heart. > >> No definition of who are members and who are not? No exchange of >> dues for a certificate, even if only a card, giving me the rights of >> a member? No defined process for electing representatives of the >> membership to the organization's management? No, my friend. I don't >> play those games. > >Games is exactly what they are, because the membership would have no legal >power. Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to ICANN. Why? ICANN's initial and even some recent funding came from some big pockets. "You dance with the one what brung ya." The purpose of a small fee would be to replace a few big checks with beaucoup little ones (or their equivalent), so that ICANN would not be dependent upon the MONEY to operate. Does that automatically give all us little folk a voice in ICANN? Probably no. Would we have any voice if we contributed nothing? Much more probably no. So you go with what looks best -- they want to impose an "ICANN tax" or whatever they want to call it, that's fine with me. I can pass up a cappuccino, and those who want to pass up a Coke can probably do so as well. Bill Lovell
RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
As Michael Sondow spake: > Izumi Aizu- > > Thank you for your frank response to my posting yesterday on the MAC > recommendations. After reading it, and because of your obvious > forthrightness and sincerity, I have no doubt that you, at least, > have none but the best motivations behind the decisions of the > committee that you supported. > > Nevertheless, and in the face of your cogent reasoning for not > requiring dues of members, I must remind you that the payment of > dues is one of the things that determines the relationship of an > individual to an organization. That is, a member of an organization > has certain rights in that organization because he or she has given > money to it, however little, and received from it a written > statement of acceptance as a member. This is a legal relationship > that gives both parties - the private one (the individual) and the > public one (the organization) - both rights and responsibilities. It > is seen as such by the laws of the United States and perhaps other > countries as well. (I will be posting later an analysis of the > possible consequences of an undefined membership that pays no dues.) Yet another legalism, straight from business law (IANAL). No contract, whatever it says, is binding with out an exchange of value. In short, a member isn't a member unless they give something for it. Conversely, an organization has no legal hold on a member without a binding agreement. The pseudo-member can simply tell the organization to PUAR and the organization has no recourse. Frankly, from a business perspective, I don't see ICANN's value proposition. > Richard Sexton, in a posting yesterday to the IFWP list, asked very > simply why there was such a fuss, since the dues could be defined > as, say, five times the price of a coca cola in the country of > residence of the applicant. Do you think that a person unwilling to > invest that modest sum, even if it meant depriving him- or herself > of five coca-colas during a year, could nevertheless be a sincere > applicant for membership and a valuable adjunct to ICANN? I doubt > it. So do I. However, even the most wealthy would not part with that princely sum without a reason to do so. > As to your suggestion that it is time to try something, regardless > of what it is, and then modify it later if it doesn't work, I'm > sorry to have to say that this process has left no naive optimism > that things can be easily modified simply because they are not > working out, or because they only benefit a few. It's better to get > things right from the beginning, don't you think?, than to spend > years trying in vain to convince people to change them, often the > very people who benefit most from the unfairness of the thing that, > in your opinion, needs changing. If your theory of attacking a > problem first and settling on the rules for it later where viable, > why is it then that we are confronted with a multi-page Registrar > Accreditation Policy and Agreement, containing even many specific > regulations for the obligations of registrants, that must be signed > and notarized before anyone can give a domain name to anyone else? You have almost hit the nail. You need a larger hammer. The REAL issue is why should I sign such a retarded beast when I could perform the function, albeit a bit more awkwardly, now, without signing it (many ISP's do it all the time, Simple Matter of Programming)? The SRS system is a kludge, what's the value-add? > And legally, just as I do not accept something I > haven't paid for, having always taken to heart the admonition to > "beware of Greeks bearing gifts", I do not expect to join an > organization that will not accept my dues as a member, however token > they be. I see that you are taking things to heart. > No definition of who are members and who are not? No exchange of > dues for a certificate, even if only a card, giving me the rights of > a member? No defined process for electing representatives of the > membership to the organization's management? No, my friend. I don't > play those games. Games is exactly what they are, because the membership would have no legal power.
Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
> >Richard Sexton, in a posting yesterday to the IFWP list, asked very >simply why there was such a fuss, since the dues could be defined >as, say, five times the price of a coca cola in the country of >residence of the applicant. Do you think that a person unwilling to >invest that modest sum, even if it meant depriving him- or herself >of five coca-colas during a year, could nevertheless be a sincere >applicant for membership and a valuable adjunct to ICANN? I doubt >it. Framing it in those terms, I think it should be 10X the price of a can of coke (or evivalent - a glass of pineapple juice in Uganda is fine). $USD 5 will have $4 spent on administration, so make it 10. If you can't ilve without less that a case of coke once a year you're not serious. This stuff all *means* something and you must be prepared to give something. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" --Thomas Jefferson
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
>Our study revealed many equally legitimate, but often conflicting needs. In >choosing between them, I sometimes opted for short-term benefits over >long-term. I aleays take the opposite view. Long after the short term pain has worn off you get to live for a long time with something that's right. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" --Thomas Jefferson
Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Izumi Aizu- Thank you for your frank response to my posting yesterday on the MAC recommendations. After reading it, and because of your obvious forthrightness and sincerity, I have no doubt that you, at least, have none but the best motivations behind the decisions of the committee that you supported. Nevertheless, and in the face of your cogent reasoning for not requiring dues of members, I must remind you that the payment of dues is one of the things that determines the relationship of an individual to an organization. That is, a member of an organization has certain rights in that organization because he or she has given money to it, however little, and received from it a written statement of acceptance as a member. This is a legal relationship that gives both parties - the private one (the individual) and the public one (the organization) - both rights and responsibilities. It is seen as such by the laws of the United States and perhaps other countries as well. (I will be posting later an analysis of the possible consequences of an undefined membership that pays no dues.) Richard Sexton, in a posting yesterday to the IFWP list, asked very simply why there was such a fuss, since the dues could be defined as, say, five times the price of a coca cola in the country of residence of the applicant. Do you think that a person unwilling to invest that modest sum, even if it meant depriving him- or herself of five coca-colas during a year, could nevertheless be a sincere applicant for membership and a valuable adjunct to ICANN? I doubt it. As to your suggestion that it is time to try something, regardless of what it is, and then modify it later if it doesn't work, I'm sorry to have to say that this process has left no naive optimism that things can be easily modified simply because they are not working out, or because they only benefit a few. It's better to get things right from the beginning, don't you think?, than to spend years trying in vain to convince people to change them, often the very people who benefit most from the unfairness of the thing that, in your opinion, needs changing. If your theory of attacking a problem first and settling on the rules for it later where viable, why is it then that we are confronted with a multi-page Registrar Accreditation Policy and Agreement, containing even many specific regulations for the obligations of registrants, that must be signed and notarized before anyone can give a domain name to anyone else? I'm sure that you and the MAC spent a lot of time over the At-large membership questions. But the results weren't worth it, if they merely say "ask nothing, do nothing". I personally have no interest in "belonging" to an organization that requires nothing of me. I couldn't trust it to respond when the d time came for me to ask something of it. And legally, just as I do not accept something I haven't paid for, having always taken to heart the admonishion to "beware of Greeks bearing gifts", I do not expect to join an organization that will not accept my dues as a member, however token they be. No definition of who are members and who are not? No exchange of dues for a certificate, even if only a card, giving me the rights of a member? No defined process for electing representatives of the membership to the organization's management? No, my friend. I don't play those games.
Re: [Membership] Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 01:27:00PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: > > ICANN has *always* been about Internet Governance. No, Jay. ICANN has *never* been about Internet Governance. There is no source of authority that could give it such powers. > Even while the White Paper and Ira Magaziner were > talking about the "administrative management of > coordinated technical functions for the Internet," > Larry Irving and Ira Magaziner were talking about > the establishment of Internet Governance! (It > just depended on the audience ;-) Yes, Ira said many things to many people. And, as you note, it was all political rhetoric. > ICANN is already taking far reaching positions on > Intellectual Property ownership and rights, My my such hysteria. The fact is that ICANN has taken a position on rights concerning TLD databases. A position on that issue is of course necessary, given that ICANN has the explicit charge of managing the TLDs. It has also made some noises about dispute resolution, but as yet taken *no* positions on it. Of course, dispute resolution is a matter *explicitly addressed* in the White paper, so ICANN must address the issue at some point. This is not "far reaching". This is precisely following the direction of the White paper -- no more, no less. In fact, ICANN is very carefully toeing that line. > and it's > only a matter of time before they tackle issues like > spam, porn, etc. That's merely histrionic inflamatory fantasy on your part. They have taken no positions on these subjects, nor any indication that they even have an inclination to take positions on these subjects... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Let me first say that I don't speak for the entire MAC committee; I can only expose my own reasoning. Our study revealed many equally legitimate, but often conflicting needs. In choosing between them, I sometimes opted for short-term benefits over long-term. Depending on the issue, it might be because long-term benefits were less certain or because the costs are beyond ICANN's current means. Most often, though, it was because I feel the most important goal of the MAC is to get a democratically elected board of directors in place within the year. IMHO a stripped down, bare-bones initial membership organization has the best chance of making that happen. It would take months just to set up verifiable photo-ID procedures, for example. An elected board can then make the long-term structural decisions, including adding many of the outstanding proposals mentioned on this list We are now looking at mechanisms to spot check initial voter enrollment for possible fraud and capture. Richard J. Sexton helpfully suggested: > I agree. With no "skin in the game" it rapidly becomes a joke and I > can't figure out why the international thing was so tough to figure > out. Make it twice the local price of a lof of bread, or 5 times > the price of a can of coke. Some things are universal The problem isn't setting the scale, it's funding it. Estimates were that it would cost US$10+ to process each member and hold the first election. The postage alone is more than twice the local price of a loaf of bread. So it could lead to serious deficits, depending on how many people sign up and where they're from, and those figures are just guesses. Another value we made is that wealthier members shouldn't be subsidizing the less wealthy without their consent. So, in terms of setting up the first election, we didn't want to make this judgment. The elected board would be a better body to make that choice. Again, if ICANN has another source of revenue, then the cost of free memberships can presumably be absorbed, but that setting domain fees was beyond the scope of our committee. One argument made by domain holders is that they do expect domain fees to be increased to support ICANN, (through their registration expenses) and they felt that they shouldn't have to pay an additional fee for the privilege of voicing their opinion about the management of the DNS system. It was viewed as a poll tax. Personally, I don't share that view and believe the costs of voting should be assessed against voters and not against those who chose not to vote. For the first election, though, getting out the vote is important enough to me to make the tradeoff. Fees can be assessed down the road if necessary. Ellen Rony raised some thoughtful concerns: > IMHO, a membership that is all-inclusive moves ICANN closer to center stage > as a governance body -- a thought which makes me shudder. While we know > that ICANN was established *solely* as an administrative body for the DNS, > I can imagine that a universal, no-barrier membership body may have > different assumptions or expectations of ICANN's corporate role -- turning > to it for complaints about spam and porn and copyright infringement, none > of which are issues for ICANN. > IMHO it's a long way between these two. I can't even see the state of Tennessee ceding authority over online pornography to ICANN, much less Iran. Independent governments will wish to make such decisions for themselves and seem less than willing to let some obscure ICANN council have any say over such important domestic issues. I personally don't think that an open at-large membership will have much impact on these forces at this time. If every Netizen on earth joins, that is still less than 10% of the world population. There was a lot of discussion within the RCS study on the relative merits of planning for a large-scale membership versus planning for a relatively small membership. Some of the mechanisms for one won't work at all well for the other. For example, if only 400 people apply for at-large membership, a lot of the authentication and fee issues become irrelevant because its a small group and easy to afford and authenticate. Some of the capture issues become more critical, however, because a relatively small number of people could capture a small membership (something that would be harder to do if the there were hundreds of thousands of members). We couldn't always find solutions that scaled. Maybe future studies will do so. > DNS administration includes profoundly complex issues, and IMHO, the most > basic qualification for membership would be some connection to the system > ICANN will be administering. Why should ICANN membership be thrown open to > my elderly mom just because I sat her down at a computer once to view our > family website, or to my young son just because he likes to use the > Internet to find new Pokemon cheats? > Many SO technologists use this argument to justify limi
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 05:08 AM 4/11/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: >IMHO, a membership that is all-inclusive moves ICANN closer to center stage >as a governance body -- a thought which makes me shudder. While we know >that ICANN was established *solely* as an administrative body for the DNS, >I can imagine that a universal, no-barrier membership body may have >different assumptions or expectations of ICANN's corporate role -- turning >to it for complaints about spam and porn and copyright infringement, none >of which are issues for ICANN. , Hi Ellen, ICANN has *always* been about Internet Governance. Even while the White Paper and Ira Magaziner were talking about the "administrative management of coordinated technical functions for the Internet," Larry Irving and Ira Magaziner were talking about the establishment of Internet Governance! (It just depended on the audience ;-) ICANN is already taking far reaching positions on Intellectual Property ownership and rights, and it's only a matter of time before they tackle issues like spam, porn, etc. We'd all be better off if we just accept this fact, and respond accordingly. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Diane Cabell wrote: >I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them, but >most of >them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic >body; not a >selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to >serve on the >Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by a Nominating Committee. I >think membership should be fee-based, but our study indicates that >adjusting fees >for developing nations ends up costing more than it brings in. IMHO, a membership that is all-inclusive moves ICANN closer to center stage as a governance body -- a thought which makes me shudder. While we know that ICANN was established *solely* as an administrative body for the DNS, I can imagine that a universal, no-barrier membership body may have different assumptions or expectations of ICANN's corporate role -- turning to it for complaints about spam and porn and copyright infringement, none of which are issues for ICANN. , DNS administration includes profoundly complex issues, and IMHO, the most basic qualification for membership would be some connection to the system ICANN will be administering. Why should ICANN membership be thrown open to my elderly mom just because I sat her down at a computer once to view our family website, or to my young son just because he likes to use the Internet to find new Pokemon cheats? The people who have made an investment in the domain name system -- through infrastructure, management, registration, hosting, etc. -- are the ones who rightfully should be involved in decisions about its administration. For those who remain unconvinced, realize that it is always easier to relax the qualifications later than to tighten them once this new membership experiment is underway. And yes, IMHO, there should be a minimal membership fee because it creates a more responsible, authentic, committed membership than one with no requirements or obligations. To answer the concern of the poorer nations, create a membership fee tiered to some annual monetary index (GNP, median hourly wage, cost of a gallon of milk) so that membership ranges from, say, $4 to $25, depending upon residency. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com // = ISBN 0879305150 *=" / +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA On the Internet,// \\ no one knows you're a dog.
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Thank you Michael for your frank comments. As a member of MAC, I would like to respond to a single point now, that is why we plan to make membership fee 'free' - or 'zero', since I am one of these who strongly suggested that - despite some strong counter arguments among my colleagues. As Diane already wrote, if ICANN really wants to be 'global' body fairly represented from not only 'advanced' nations, but developing countries as well, then we need to have pragmatic mecahnisms to ensure that. In some countries, the income for professional people, say in university or government ornganizations, are making as much as, sometime US$ 200 or $300. That is the fact. And often these people run the Internet, in country NICs or other administrative/operational activities. As now I live in Asia and occasionally visit/meet these people, it has some reality. (most local living costs are very inexpensive in these countries, so do not take this that they have very bad living standard. most foods are cheaper and better, life is fine, but 'imported' stuff, or US$s are, especially after Asian currency crisis and davaulation, are now quite expensive.) So even $20 or $50 fee seems very reasonable to most of 'us', for these people it is not. Of course, if it is really needed and worth charing, we should make so. But is it really? I doubt. Here's why: I guestimated there will be about 1000 people on ICANN at-large members, and we charge $50 per year, total amount will be $50,000, right? Then I asked how much should ICANN earn to operate - as annual budget/income. The CEO may make at least $50,000 or 100,000, right? And staffs and office rental and all that - that will result what - 1 or 2 million a year, at least, no? So considering the overall size of the operating budget, the estimated amount from the at-large membership fee is very small, and most of which will be spent as adirect cost of maintaining these membership anyway. As you point out, Michael, there are certain items we should be careful to implement - to prevent abuse or fraud. I agree with you and that is why I/we tried to come up with some reasonbale ways to make authentication/ validation process via 'land' or physical measures. Some suggested to send a copy of photo ID, but in some African countries, as Nii said, I guess, it is not easy at all. So we dropped that. But it is still in early stage of ICANN. What I hope to see is, rather than spending too much time discussing based on different assumptions, make one decision, try it out, and then change it if it goes not too well. I think it's almost time to move on. Otherwise, nothing will come out. We are also discussing how to 'reach out' to recruit as many members for at large. Zero cost is only 'negative' way to open the entrance. We need more positive attractions, I think, as the value of being the member of ICANN. That we need to put more energy - otherwise it will be anyway captured by the same people...we all know. I don't think we took things shallowly. I spent more than reasonable time I would say in my individual capacity for these discussions. Including costly trips and conference calls. I hope people will have more wider torelance and try to listen and understand between the lines in addition to making their opinons and claims. Thank you for you patience to read this note. izumi from Kuala Lumpur today At 09:54 1999/04/10 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote: > Comments on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committeee Recommendations > of March 18th, 1999, Pertaining to The Formation and Function of the > ICANN At-large Membership > > 4. There will be no membership fee. (We consider this to be too > difficult to set equitably, and costly to collect. > > This is preposterous on the face of it. No membership fee to belong > to, and vote for the directors of, the international organization > controlling the technological and sociological development of the > Internet, the most economically and socially potent tool for > communication yet invented by man? Why? So that the present Board > need not go to the trouble of thinking of a way of collecting dues, > something that is accomplished by every other organization without > great difficulty? And with what consequences? That persons may join > and vote, not only without having to substantiate their identity but > without being asked to make any a priori personal contribution > whatsoever? And how is ICANN to support itself? Through the funding > of special-interest groups, invariably those with the biggest > purses, and who will manipulate and control ICANN in proportion to > the amount of financial responsibility they provide for its > functioning? Is this what is meant by responsibility and > responsiveness to the community, as expressed in the White Paper and > ICANN's own bylaws? > > > 9. There is no limit to the number of candidates at any election. > > Shall all members be candidates, then? And voters as well? Every > person in the wor
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Diane and all, The only problem with your concerns is that the ICANN is already operating at a deficit. The ICANN INterim Board assured this in Singapore... Diane Cabell wrote: > I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them, but most of > them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic body; not a > selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to serve on the > Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by a Nominating Committee. I > think membership should be fee-based, but our study indicates that adjusting fees > for developing nations ends up costing more than it brings in. No matter what, I > do not want to see an ICANN operating at a deficit. > > Diane Cabell > MAC > > Gordon Cook wrote: > > > I got the impression from Michaels remarks that the quoted material was > > what ICANN had adopted. While he is well capable of speaking for himself, > > i took his remarks as a decent analysis of how ICANN could misuse this > > structure. I have seen nothing in ICANN's behavior that leads me to > > believe that it wouldn't misuse it if it so chose. I was not and I doubt > > that Michael was intent on attacking either your or Dianne as being > > directly responsible for the content. you were hardly in a majority > > position. > > > > Is not the membership seen as the only counterweight to a boar d that is in > > every other respect accountable to no one save it self and the california > > AG? It was discouraging to sit here and see that we are getting a > > "membership" which could be wide open to manipulation if vested interest > > chose to do so. But then most everything about ICANN is disturbing. > > > > >Ok, Gordon I'm here. > > >But I'm not sure what you want from me. > > >I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do > > >with the MAC recommendations. > > >Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended. > > >I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks > > >(something I am getting used to). > > >I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in > > >his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the > > >telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there. > > >In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I > > >don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct > > >democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And > > >remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves > > >chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what > > >they feel is right. Boring, but that's life. > > > > > >Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN > > >BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting > > >them outright. > > > > > > > The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- > > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See > > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to > > subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com > > > > -- > > Diane Cabell > http://.mama-tech.com > Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP > Boston, MA Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams 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
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Diane Cabell a écrit: > > I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of > them, but most of them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, > open, >democratic body; not a selective, wealthy group. I want any > Internet user to be >eligible to serve on the > Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by a Nominating > Committee. You want good things. It's unfortunate that you think they will happen by avoiding structure and hoping for the best. They won't. All you will accomplish by that is to allow those with an agenda to take control. Anyone with experience in the formation of large organizations knows this. But you and the other people chosen to deal with these questions have no experience in the formation of large organizations, and are living in a fools paradise. Your good intentions are paving the way to hell. I > think membership should be fee-based, but our study indicates that adjusting fees > for developing nations ends up costing more than it brings in. No matter what, I > do not want to see an ICANN operating at a deficit. > > Diane Cabell > MAC > > Gordon Cook wrote: > > > I got the impression from Michaels remarks that the quoted material was > > what ICANN had adopted. While he is well capable of speaking for himself, > > i took his remarks as a decent analysis of how ICANN could misuse this > > structure. I have seen nothing in ICANN's behavior that leads me to > > believe that it wouldn't misuse it if it so chose. I was not and I doubt > > that Michael was intent on attacking either your or Dianne as being > > directly responsible for the content. you were hardly in a majority > > position. > > > > Is not the membership seen as the only counterweight to a boar d that is in > > every other respect accountable to no one save it self and the california > > AG? It was discouraging to sit here and see that we are getting a > > "membership" which could be wide open to manipulation if vested interest > > chose to do so. But then most everything about ICANN is disturbing. > > > > >Ok, Gordon I'm here. > > >But I'm not sure what you want from me. > > >I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do > > >with the MAC recommendations. > > >Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended. > > >I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks > > >(something I am getting used to). > > >I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in > > >his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the > > >telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there. > > >In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I > > >don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct > > >democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And > > >remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves > > >chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what > > >they feel is right. Boring, but that's life. > > > > > >Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN > > >BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting > > >them outright. > > > > > > > The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- > > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See > > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to > > subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com > > > > -- > > Diane Cabell > http://.mama-tech.com > Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP > Boston, MA
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Dan Steinberg a écrit: > I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks > (something I am getting used to). No, I don't believe you were insulted. Angry, yes. Insulted, no. Your reaction appears to have been the common one of someone who has done what they know to be wrong and is called on it. You say "insulted" merely to preempt the accusation that you have insulted, by discarding their work, those who labored to develop the complex voting and membership structures required by a complex situation. They are the ones, the only ones, who have a claim for insult here. > I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in > his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the > telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there. > In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I > don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct > democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And > remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves > chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what > they feel is right. Boring, but that's life. I have read this paragraph three times and cannot make a grain of sense from it. You hotly discussed the Fishkin model, and no one was willing to discard it in favor of "direct democracy" (as you characterize your no-think model of one man, one vote), so that's what ended up in the recommendations? I must be missing something. Perhaps I've been living abroad too long. > Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN > BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting > them outright. They were rejected outright when you created a discussion list and invited people to participate in it and work to resolve a difficult problem with rational solutions rather than simplistic panaceas whose sole motivation is the avoidance of effort.
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
At 07:06 PM 4/10/99 -0400, you wrote: >Your desires as expressed below are noble enough. But, you also appear >willing to extend Mike roberts, joe sims and the board a lot more trust >than, in my opinion, they merit. With no transparency and no >accountability within ICANN, the board is being handed a membership >mechanism that looks to me, at least, to be extremely easy to manipulate. >Even ISOC charges dues of $40 a year. I agree. With no "skin in the game" it rapidly becomes a joke and I can't figure out why the international thing was so tough to figure out. Make it twice the local price of a lof of bread, or 5 times the price of a can of coke. Some things are universal. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" --Thomas Jefferson
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Diane, most people call me Gordon. Your desires as expressed below are noble enough. But, you also appear willing to extend Mike roberts, joe sims and the board a lot more trust than, in my opinion, they merit. With no transparency and no accountability within ICANN, the board is being handed a membership mechanism that looks to me, at least, to be extremely easy to manipulate. Even ISOC charges dues of $40 a year. Quite frankly when ICANN says it reserves the right to take up to a dollar per domain name to pay its expenses, I cannot see how anyone could fret about it operating at a deficit. The internet has gotten where it is unencumbered by bureaucracies like ICANN. Hans Kranjenbrinnks legacy telco's best hope is for an ICANN regulatory regime that can force the Qwests and L3s of the world to operate at PTT and ITU speed rather than internet speed. The CPSU had a nice democratic sounding consititution complete with all necessary obesciences to the rights of the ordinary people to serve in the highest levels of the ruling party bodies. Stalin also had control of the General Secretariat of the CPSU. His hand picked henchmen allowed only those to advances whose loyalty to Stalin was unquestioned. If you trust ICANN you can I am sure honestly believe you have done a good thing. I don't trust ICANN and believe that history can well show the dangers of placing the trust that you are espousing into the hands of an unaccountable body. >I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them, but >most of >them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic >body; not a >selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to >serve on the >Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by a Nominating Committee. I >think membership should be fee-based, but our study indicates that >adjusting fees >for developing nations ends up costing more than it brings in. No matter >what, I >do not want to see an ICANN operating at a deficit. > >Diane Cabell >MAC The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
I support most of the MAC recommedations, Mr. Cook. Not all of them, but most of them. I want the At-large Membership to be a large, open, democratic body; not a selective, wealthy group. I want any Internet user to be eligible to serve on the Board of ICANN, not just the people hand-picked by a Nominating Committee. I think membership should be fee-based, but our study indicates that adjusting fees for developing nations ends up costing more than it brings in. No matter what, I do not want to see an ICANN operating at a deficit. Diane Cabell MAC Gordon Cook wrote: > I got the impression from Michaels remarks that the quoted material was > what ICANN had adopted. While he is well capable of speaking for himself, > i took his remarks as a decent analysis of how ICANN could misuse this > structure. I have seen nothing in ICANN's behavior that leads me to > believe that it wouldn't misuse it if it so chose. I was not and I doubt > that Michael was intent on attacking either your or Dianne as being > directly responsible for the content. you were hardly in a majority > position. > > Is not the membership seen as the only counterweight to a boar d that is in > every other respect accountable to no one save it self and the california > AG? It was discouraging to sit here and see that we are getting a > "membership" which could be wide open to manipulation if vested interest > chose to do so. But then most everything about ICANN is disturbing. > > >Ok, Gordon I'm here. > >But I'm not sure what you want from me. > >I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do > >with the MAC recommendations. > >Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended. > >I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks > >(something I am getting used to). > >I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in > >his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the > >telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there. > >In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I > >don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct > >democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And > >remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves > >chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what > >they feel is right. Boring, but that's life. > > > >Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN > >BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting > >them outright. > > > > The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to > subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com > -- Diane Cabell http://.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP Boston, MA
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
I got the impression from Michaels remarks that the quoted material was what ICANN had adopted. While he is well capable of speaking for himself, i took his remarks as a decent analysis of how ICANN could misuse this structure. I have seen nothing in ICANN's behavior that leads me to believe that it wouldn't misuse it if it so chose. I was not and I doubt that Michael was intent on attacking either your or Dianne as being directly responsible for the content. you were hardly in a majority position. Is not the membership seen as the only counterweight to a boar d that is in every other respect accountable to no one save it self and the california AG? It was discouraging to sit here and see that we are getting a "membership" which could be wide open to manipulation if vested interest chose to do so. But then most everything about ICANN is disturbing. >Ok, Gordon I'm here. >But I'm not sure what you want from me. >I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do >with the MAC recommendations. >Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended. >I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks >(something I am getting used to). >I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in >his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the >telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there. >In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I >don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct >democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And >remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves >chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what >they feel is right. Boring, but that's life. > >Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN >BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting >them outright. > The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur- 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Ok, Gordon I'm here. But I'm not sure what you want from me. I can tell you that Roberts and Sims had absolutely *nothing* to do with the MAC recommendations. Neither of them were present for any telecons I attended. I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks (something I am getting used to). I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there. In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what they feel is right. Boring, but that's life. Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting them outright. Gordon Cook wrote: > > And in typically ICANN like cowardly fashion those who designed the > travesity that you critique so well refuse to stand up and say it is I who > did this and here is why. One can guess it is R oberts or Sims. Too bad > they so far lack the guts to say so and to answer your critique. Their > silence can only confirm one's suspicion that these people are up to no > good and that Esther and the Board are witting collaborators. > > I'd be interested in hearing from Dan Steinberg whether this bears much > resemblance to what the memebreship committee recommended. > > >Comments on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committeee Recommendations > >of March 18th, 1999, Pertaining to The Formation and Function of the > >ICANN At-large Membership > > > >First, it must be said that these most recent recommendations of the > >M.A.C. seem to ignore entirely not only the lengthy discussions that > >have taken place on the ICANN membership mailing list but the > >extremely well thought out and well exposed models proposed by > >Mssrs. Teernstra, Heckendorn, Fishkin, and Lowenhaupt, which appear > >at the ICANN website (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/mac/bbtop.htm). > >We do not understand why such hard and fruitful work on the part of > >conscientious persons deeply concerned with this process and its > >successful outcome has been thrown aside. Is the ICANN Board, and > >the MAC itself, unwilling to take the trouble to comprehend, > >assimilate, and synthesize these proposals? If so, they should > >dissociate themselves from the complex questions involved in the > >formation and function of the ICANN At-Large membership and make > >room for those willing and able to do the work, of which there > >appear to be not a few. > > > >This said, we offer a brief critique of the MAC's recommendations as > >expressed in the Summary of the MAC Conference Call > >(http://www.icann.org/mac-mar18.html), which, due to the shallow > >thinking they reflect and their obvious lack of appreciation of the > >objective reality that would ensue from their adoption, hardly merit > >even the little space we give them here. > > > >1. Any individual or organisation may be an AL member. Only > >ORGANISATIONS that are members of a SO are excluded. > > > >Comment: No criteria whatsoever for membership is a clear invitation > >to persons with no real interest in the Internet, but who seek to > >use a newly created organization to further their political > >ambitions, to join and manipulate their standing as members for > >their own purposes. As Joop Teernstra has so well pointed out in his > >proposal, an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > >clearly has a primary if not unique responsibility towards those who > >possess or make use of Internet names and numbers, and it is these > >who should be its members. As to excluding from the At-Large > >membership organizations that are members of the SOs, that is not > >only impossible to control, since organizations are after all only > >collectives of their individual members, but undesirable since the > >organizations that belong to the SOs, as well as the individuals who > >are members of them, need a forum for collective deliberation, and > >that, by all reason, should be the At-Large membership. > > > >2. Members must apply by sending an on-line registration form > >provided by ICANN, giving an e-mail address and other minimal > >identification details, which ICANN will only attempt to verify if a > >complaint is lodged. > > > >This is merely a convenience for the ICANN Board; but, like the > >recommendation above, it invites the worst abuses. Who is to know if > >the persons applying even exist, or if any of their information is > >correct? Surely, minimal authentication, easily provided by postal > >service mail-back, must be required in order to substantiate the > >existence of the applicants. > > > >3. Members must re-regis
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
Mr. Cook:
Although you've asked Dan Steinberg for comment, please accept mine as well.
Diane Cabell
MAC
Mr. Cook quotes Michael Sondow:
> >{...}
> >This said, we offer a brief critique of the MAC's recommendations as
> >expressed in the Summary of the MAC Conference Call
> >(http://www.icann.org/mac-mar18.html), which, due to the shallow
> >thinking they reflect and their obvious lack of appreciation of the
> >objective reality that would ensue from their adoption, hardly merit
> >even the little space we give them here.
The shorthand terminology of the conference call notes may be shallow, but the
discussions that went into these recommendations were not. The MAC
recommendations and reasoning, as they were presented to ICANN, are at
http://cyber.harvard.edu/rcs/ titled "Conrades Report to ICANN." Reality,
especially the financial variety, was always on the table, however choices and
compromises were sometimes made between legitimate competing goals.
> >1. Any individual or organisation may be an AL member. Only
> >ORGANISATIONS that are members of a SO are excluded.
> >
> >Comment: No criteria whatsoever for membership is a clear invitation
> >to persons with no real interest in the Internet, but who seek to
> >use a newly created organization to further their political
> >ambitions, to join and manipulate their standing as members for
> >their own purposes. As Joop Teernstra has so well pointed out in his
> >proposal, an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> >clearly has a primary if not unique responsibility towards those who
> >possess or make use of Internet names and numbers, and it is these
> >who should be its members. As to excluding from the At-Large
> >membership organizations that are members of the SOs, that is not
> >only impossible to control, since organizations are after all only
> >collectives of their individual members, but undesirable since the
> >organizations that belong to the SOs, as well as the individuals who
> >are members of them, need a forum for collective deliberation, and
> >that, by all reason, should be the At-Large membership.
The MAC consensus is to allow any Internet User be a member of the At Large
Membership community. We believe that their interests are affected even if they
do not hold their own domains or IP addresses, in the same fashion that tenants
have an equal interest in their town's building safety codes as does the
landlord. Some MAC members were of the opinion that ISPs could adequately
represent their customer's interests, but that view was not widely shared on the
committee.
As to excluding organizations that are also in SOs, the precise recommendation is
to exclude those organizations that have a *direct* vote in the election of SO
directors. For example, the President of the IETF (if there is one) would not be
permitted to cast an IETF vote for the At-large directors. The point is that the
SO interests shouldn't be able to capture the At-large voice as well. Individuals
who are members of SO organizations, however, are perfectly free to join the
At-large.
> >2. Members must apply by sending an on-line registration form
> >provided by ICANN, giving an e-mail address and other minimal
> >identification details, which ICANN will only attempt to verify if a
> >complaint is lodged.
> >
> >This is merely a convenience for the ICANN Board; but, like the
> >recommendation above, it invites the worst abuses. Who is to know if
> >the persons applying even exist, or if any of their information is
> >correct? Surely, minimal authentication, easily provided by postal
> >service mail-back, must be required in order to substantiate the
> >existence of the applicants.
The MAC is recommending that some land-based identification be required. We
debated the costs and efficacy of verification at some length. If extensive
verification procedures are applied, then costs go up. We opted for free
membership and traded that off for random verification checks plus investigation
upon complaint. It's a judgment call. We are now working on installing some
guidelines to assess the initial membership population to determine, before the
first election, if we are getting a reasonably authentic membership.
> >3. Members must re-register annually. Changes to registered
> >details, particularly e-mail address, must be advised on pain of
> >loss of membership.
> >
> >What is the point to this if there is no hard-copy authentication of
> >members' existence? It only invites further abuses, such as the
> >creation of unlimited false identities on a regular basis, or in the
> >event of an important vote.
There will be land-based authentication, if the ICANN board follows the MAC
recommendations. The conference notes do not make this clear.
> >4. There will be no membership fee. (We consider this to be too
> >difficult to set equitably, and costly to collect.
> >
> >This is preposterous on the face of it. No membership fee to belong
> >to, and
Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
And in typically ICANN like cowardly fashion those who designed the travesity that you critique so well refuse to stand up and say it is I who did this and here is why. One can guess it is R oberts or Sims. Too bad they so far lack the guts to say so and to answer your critique. Their silence can only confirm one's suspicion that these people are up to no good and that Esther and the Board are witting collaborators. I'd be interested in hearing from Dan Steinberg whether this bears much resemblance to what the memebreship committee recommended. >Comments on the ICANN Membership Advisory Committeee Recommendations >of March 18th, 1999, Pertaining to The Formation and Function of the >ICANN At-large Membership > >First, it must be said that these most recent recommendations of the >M.A.C. seem to ignore entirely not only the lengthy discussions that >have taken place on the ICANN membership mailing list but the >extremely well thought out and well exposed models proposed by >Mssrs. Teernstra, Heckendorn, Fishkin, and Lowenhaupt, which appear >at the ICANN website (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/mac/bbtop.htm). >We do not understand why such hard and fruitful work on the part of >conscientious persons deeply concerned with this process and its >successful outcome has been thrown aside. Is the ICANN Board, and >the MAC itself, unwilling to take the trouble to comprehend, >assimilate, and synthesize these proposals? If so, they should >dissociate themselves from the complex questions involved in the >formation and function of the ICANN At-Large membership and make >room for those willing and able to do the work, of which there >appear to be not a few. > >This said, we offer a brief critique of the MAC's recommendations as >expressed in the Summary of the MAC Conference Call >(http://www.icann.org/mac-mar18.html), which, due to the shallow >thinking they reflect and their obvious lack of appreciation of the >objective reality that would ensue from their adoption, hardly merit >even the little space we give them here. > >1. Any individual or organisation may be an AL member. Only >ORGANISATIONS that are members of a SO are excluded. > >Comment: No criteria whatsoever for membership is a clear invitation >to persons with no real interest in the Internet, but who seek to >use a newly created organization to further their political >ambitions, to join and manipulate their standing as members for >their own purposes. As Joop Teernstra has so well pointed out in his >proposal, an Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >clearly has a primary if not unique responsibility towards those who >possess or make use of Internet names and numbers, and it is these >who should be its members. As to excluding from the At-Large >membership organizations that are members of the SOs, that is not >only impossible to control, since organizations are after all only >collectives of their individual members, but undesirable since the >organizations that belong to the SOs, as well as the individuals who >are members of them, need a forum for collective deliberation, and >that, by all reason, should be the At-Large membership. > >2. Members must apply by sending an on-line registration form >provided by ICANN, giving an e-mail address and other minimal >identification details, which ICANN will only attempt to verify if a >complaint is lodged. > >This is merely a convenience for the ICANN Board; but, like the >recommendation above, it invites the worst abuses. Who is to know if >the persons applying even exist, or if any of their information is >correct? Surely, minimal authentication, easily provided by postal >service mail-back, must be required in order to substantiate the >existence of the applicants. > >3. Members must re-register annually. Changes to registered >details, particularly e-mail address, must be advised on pain of >loss of membership. > >What is the point to this if there is no hard-copy authentication of >members' existence? It only invites further abuses, such as the >creation of unlimited false identities on a regular basis, or in the >event of an important vote. > >4. There will be no membership fee. (We consider this to be too >difficult to set equitably, and costly to collect. > >This is preposterous on the face of it. No membership fee to belong >to, and vote for the directors of, the international organization >controlling the technological and sociological development of the >Internet, the most economically and socially potent tool for >communication yet invented by man? Why? So that the present Board >need not go to the trouble of thinking of a way of collecting dues, >something that is accomplished by every other organization without >great difficulty? And with what consequences? That persons may join >and vote, not only without having to substantiate their identity but >without being asked to make any a priori personal contribution >whatsoever? And how is ICANN to support itself? Through th
