[ifwp] Berkman Workshop Agenda--NOMINATIONS

and personal preference in such regard is not sufficient basis for diminishing member access to the process. Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel Internet Texoma Wendy Seltzer wrote: ... 1:00 - 2:30 Breakout Sessions:     ...     How should directors be nominated and elected

[ifwp] Re: Membership Models

You can carry a calculation out to an accurate but meaningless point. We do not want to build our governance system around the "Cajun" or homeless exception. Roeland's point is fine, but I do not think he intends it to be more than rhetorical. Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > Karl Auerbach wro

[ifwp] Re: MAC Process?!

What discussion have you had regarding the way in which a proportionate representation scheme (such as STV) would work (mechanically) as regards representation of diverse interests? Diane Cabell wrote: > C'est possible. These are works in progress, Jay. It isn't clear yet how > many models we

[ifwp] IFWP Mailing List - Takes One

Jonathan Zittrain wrote: > ...I want to know...whether there's an IFWP... There has been an IFWP. We were all part of it. We met in the four corners of the earth and on this list to work out a decent and civil concensus. We were ready to meet in a wrap-up meeting to resolve our remaining diff

[ifwp] Re: CORRECTION (was Re: Membership Models)

Jim Dixon wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote: > > > The Domain Name Rights Coalition was thrown off the IFWP steering committee because > > it was not incorporated despite the fact that it was an organizer of the > > "entity." We did not

[ifwp] Proposed?

Bob Allisat wrote: > If I understand you correctly Eric you are proposing > that the IFWP become the membership of ICANN... Yes. Molly, if it isn't already there, would you add this as an option to be considered under the "individual" membership model? _

[ifwp] Don't worry. You haven't.

Bill Lovell wrote: > Not to poke a hole here, but what about all the great, unwashed > millions who own modems and flit about the internet with them but > have never heard of either IFWP or ICANN? What about them? There must be some good reason why they did not come to a meeting, join this lis

[ifwp] Super-majorities

Joop's latest post (snipped below with "minor injections") made me wonder where we stood on the issue of super-majority votes for certain kinds of actions. Has this been hashed out? Joop Teernstra wrote: > > SHOULD ANY AND ALL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF A DNSO REQUIRE > A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE

[ifwp] Getting lost or getting started?

The first question is "will we poll?" There is no need to discuss all the details unless we answer that question "yes." Einar Stefferud wrote: > > I have some serious problems with the propose polling questions below. > > The problem is that they deal with lower level details while the > highe

We need to go the other direction

Dave Crocker wrote: > > IETF and IAB have closed decision-making meetings. > > These are by no means the only groups that behave in this fashion AND have > plenty of community support, but I thought the irony of being able to cite > them in this context would be appealing. > I do not think th

Re: Another view on Ogilvy and ICANN

Esther Dyson wrote: > > Dave, how could I not agree? As I've said, good PR firms help you figure > out what you're trying to say and help you say it. They also bring the bad > news back to the client so that the client can deal with reality. There is a basic flaw in this recipe. We are a s

Communicating with the world or with the likely members?

Kent Crispin wrote: > > It is an egregious and fundamental error to think that these lists > and the USG represent the sum of ICANNs constituents. Who and how many will be members is a significant factor in the design of the voting mechanism, if not the organization. How many of us really care

Re: [Membership] Re: Fees/contributions

Daniel Kaplan wrote: > > Well, it all depends on which minimum you're talking about. $35 (to take > ISOC's non-student, non-developping country minimum) is pretty low for one > interested American or an European; however, it makes it too costly for one > company to buy 100,000 votes - considerin

Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?

George Conrades wrote: Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me. Geo. George Conrades wrote: > > Michael, your thoughts on this one make a lot of sense to me. Geo. > > ...it's a good idea. If people registering domain names were > automatically made members, by having a

Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?

Jonathan Zittrain wrote: > One conception of ICANN has it performing > functions that affect all internet users, and that therefore should take > the needs of all internet users--including the lazy, time-deprived, or > confused--in mind. (Not to mention future internet users, who may not > curre

Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?

Diane Cabell wrote: > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > I support the creation of a public interest, or netizens SO, if you > > like. > > That's what the At Large Membership is supposed to be. No. We are discussing why that is NOT so. The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN electi

Look at the known facts, not the clouds.

Bob Allisat wrote: > > Eric Weisberg wrote: > > The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN > > elections no matter how hard you beat the bushes. > > I figure a lot of average people > will want to get involved if it ever comes to that. I

Look at the known facts, not FCN.

Bob Allisat wrote: > My experience with FCN has been most > illuminating. Why is FCN equivalent to ICANN for the purpose of projecting membership? Is the traffic to a candy store in the mall relevant in projecting the number of parking spaces I will need at my law office? > We opened

[IFWP] Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?

Do these comments indicate a preference for limiting membership to certain categories of people/organizations? George Conrades wrote: > > rus, I am inclined to think we should move slowly on opening up membership > in an unlimited way UNTIL we understand how the membership process works > agains

[IFWP] Re: Citizens Inferior to Supporting Organizations

e as > all those other bad guys in total. > -Original Message- > From: Bob Allisat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 12:24 PM > To: George Conrades > Cc: 'Eric Weisberg'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Citizens Inferior to Supporting Org

[IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?

I apologize for this cross-post to the IFWP list, but thought I would use it as an opportunity to move anyone interested in the discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where we should be assembling the nuts and bolts of the over-all membership structure. Charles Nesson wrote: > we must defend against c

Re: [Membership] Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?

Jonathan Zittrain wrote: > I've probably missed it amidst the sea of list emails and announcements; do > you have a particular "single transferable vote" proposal and description > up anywhere? Yes. We have discussed this at length. Anthony Van Couvering posted a bunch of URLs last week. Plea

[IFWP] "Organic/dynamic" self-forming constituencies?

Karl Auerbach wrote: Let people and entities form whatever coalitions they desire, let them mutate and reform as conditions change. Let those coalitions express their power via the number of individuals that they can convince to cast their votes in accord with the coalition's point of v

[IFWP] Is Karl describing a different part of the elephant?

Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Does this imply "proportional representation" with all seats filled at > > each election? Or, are there other ways of attaining such objectives > > such as Joop's proposal or by > > cumulative, "approval" or "rational" voting mech

Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN

Greg Skinner wrote: > I think there is a preference among people to have face-to-face, or at > least telephone conferences because there are some things that are not > communicated very well in email and other text-based media. Tone of > voice and facial expression lend much to the communication

[ifwp] Re: Constituencies

This discussion illustrates how arbitrary an attempt to populate a board through designation of defined constituencies must be, not to mention how ridiculously complicated such mechanisms end up. And, there is no way to empirically weigh the relative fairness of the results of such systems. Why

[ifwp] STV

Bret Fausett asked me to explain STV (my fingers were over anxious and typed "STAVE"). I will probably try to do so this evening if we do not get an explanation from others sooner. However, Nigel Roberts (Island Networks) and Jim Dixon are more knowledgeable on the subject, as they have actual w

[IFWP] Isn't this the "biggie?"

100,000 members which some said would protect us from capture. Is this proposal likely to accomplish what the community wants? I think not. Is it too late to stop this train? There is only one way to find out, and now is the time to try. Today is the deadline for comments (which may be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel Internet Texoma

Re: [IFWP] Comment on Geographic Diversity Policy

Izumi AIZU wrote: > But I want to state that the geographic diversity has been very much > the consensus from last year's IFWP process, Only in an "aspirational" sense. We have never agreed that this form of diversity should be imposed if it will frustrate other forms, as is the case with the c

[IFWP] ICANN is multi-lingual

I just noticed the following links on the bottom of the ICANN Berlin Meeting page Berkman Center for Internet & Society | Translate This Page

Re: [IFWP] Comment on Geographic Diversity Policy

Kent Crispin wrote: > I'm sorry, Eric. You are misinformed. Izumi is correct: geographic > diversity has been an absolute requirement from very early on, By whom? I did not hear it required at Reston and am not aware of an IFWP poll on the subject. We do not know what process produced that g

Re: [IFWP] IFWP MAC Comments of Tom Lowenhaupt, pt. 2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In my community, we just had a school board election with 24 candidates > running for 9 seats. You were lucky. In Denison, Tx (my home town), we rarely have contested races. No one wants to get so personal as to challenge an incumbent for "his" seat. > And it was

[IFWP] Thank you, Jonathan

  Jon, I greatly appreciate your active and gentlemanly participation in this and other lists.  As always, it is difficult to discuss significant issues without our various differences becoming (or appearing) personal rather than substantive.  You have cleved to the higher ground.   And, while so

Re: [IFWP] Re: Membership & supermajorities

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Jon Zittrain wrote: > ...What worries me most is getting the > electorate to be representative in the first place. We know that commercial interests will be represented to the extent they are affected. The non-commercial enduser probably will not. But, that i

[IFWP] ICANN hold-overs/elections

Jon Zittrain wrote: > Where do you see ICANN about to adopt simple majority, head-to-head, > winner-take-all elections? For the at-large board or elsewhere? I forgot to mention something which may change in light of the recent USG demands for ICANN elections. I am told that some members of

Re: [IFWP] Re: Membership & supermajorities

  Jon Zittrain wrote: Take #1 on the membership solution: make it an open membership; people join; that's the electorate; they elect; end of story.  If this appeals to you there's no such thing as a "captured" electorate, because it simply is what it is. I disagree.  To the extent some interests

[IFWP] Why fail on purpose?

A system can be designed to accomplish a purpose or to fail.  ICANN must decide whether its purpose is to afford maximum diversity of representation or to develop a fool proof system for conducting meaningless elections (in the sense of its expressed representational aspiration). Diane Cabell rep

Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?

  Diane Cabell wrote: Eric Weisberg wrote: > A system can be designed to accomplish a purpose or to fail.  ICANN > must decide whether its purpose is to afford maximum diversity of > representation or to develop a fool proof system for conducting > meaningless elections (in the

Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?

Joe Sims wrote: > ...One point I should make: a > very significant hurdle to any election process is the lack of money to run > it. It might well be a sensible strategy, especially at this stage of its > development, for ICANN to have some professional election help, but it has > no money to

Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose

Kent Crispin wrote: > I'll offer the same thing for lower cost, on my servers, and I will > throw in some security expertise as well. Sound fair? How would you feel about serving on an elections implementation committee? I would also recommend Jim Dixon, Diane Cabell and Joop Teernstra.

Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication

Please let me join this exchange. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The problem is that we were talking of the vote at IDNO as an example for > the electronic vote for the elections of the ICANN Board. > > Maybe I should not, but I personally tend to care less about how an election > in a working group

[IFWP] Will you ever have a vote?

Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > The ICANN Board of Directors held its third quarterly meeting in Santiago, > Chile, today. The Board passed a number of resolutions, including the > following: > > ... > - Implementation of At Large Membership > "Implementation" is an interesting descriptor for what w

Re: [IFWP] Esther Dyson's reply

Karl Auerbach wrote: > > In practical terms, I don't think a "global" vote makes sense. A vote of > > people worldwide, yes, but only of interested parties who know what they are > > voting about. > > ...As for ICANN's metric of "interested". It appears to be a metric based on > the extraction