>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:34:43 -0400 (EDT) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Michael Gendron ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From gcstech.com!mgendron Mon Apr 12 08:34:42 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from mail-atm.nycap.rr.com([24.92.32.1]) (10374 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net > via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe > (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:34:30 -0400 (EDT) > (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18) >Received: from cm-29-35-118.nycap.rr.com (cm-29-35-118.nycap.rr.com [24.29.35.118]) > by mail-atm.nycap.rr.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA03657; > Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:31:03 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by cm-29-35-118.nycap.rr.com with Microsoft Mail > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:26:24 >-0700 >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Michael Gendron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'Dr Nii Quaynor'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Michael Sondow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > ICANN MAC list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ICANN > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Int'l Forum on the White Paper" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Joop Teernstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Jonathan Zittrain > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Daniel Kaplan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > DNSO discuss > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Eric Weisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Esther Dyson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Kathryn Kleiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry Lessig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: [Membership] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18 >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:26:22 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >Again, the voice of reason I mentioned in the past. Nii's comments seem = >to reflect the current standing committee of ICANN. However the other = >voices are not being heard. Minimal dues are symbolic, but also carry = >some legal weight. It is not a case of creating second-class citizens, = >but rather opening the membership to all, and giving those who need it = >assurance that they can option membership though a dues waiver. = >Further, considering the state of technology (no way to verify identity = >over the Net) a hard copy authentication procedure is essential. How = >can you have voting when you cannot authenticate the ballots? I think a = >reasonable compromise can be reached. > >Michael Gendron >Lecturer >State University of New York at Albany > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dr Nii Quaynor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 4:02 AM >To: Michael Sondow; ICANN MAC list; ICANN; Int'l Forum on the White = >Paper; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joop Teernstra; Jonathan Zittrain; Daniel = >Kaplan; DNSO discuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Einar Stefferud; Eric = >Weisberg; Esther Dyson; Jay Fenello; Karl Auerbach; Kathryn Kleiman; = >Larry Lessig; Milton Mueller >Subject: Re: [Membership] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18 > > > >Some inputs for your consideration. > >> >>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. >> > >MAC deliberations at Singapore made recommendations on criteria. I = >recall >that the criteria *did not* exclude people with criminal record because = >of >potential problems of dissidents, for example. Hence its not true that = >no >criteria were specified. This meeting was an open meeting, as I recall. > >I support the statement that those who possess or make use of Internet = >names >and numbers should be members. I however think that there are others who = >get >impacted by the Internet and should not be excluded. Several of these = >users >dont own names and *dont* know that numbers even exist. Hence a more >flexible and open membership should be sought beyond what you are = >calling >for. > >>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. >> > >MAC had discussed a more elaborate procedure involving snail mail. I >believe its still being discussed so you may be jumping to conclusions = >on >this one. > >>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. >> > >A hard-copy authentication procedure has been discussed. > >>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? >> > >Several Developing Country constituencies cannot pay the dues. We prefer = >not >to exclude anyone because of dues. We also want every one to join = >through >the front door *not* via some special back-door aid. The rich should not >dominate this membership group. We will like to avoid second-class = >citizens >in this membership. > > >>6. Members form a single world wide constituency to elect AL >>directors. >> >>A nice sentiment. However, it remains to be seen if it has any >>inherent significance, in light of the other, more pragmatic, >>measures that may make its realization impossible. >> > >This is meant to be a significant statement, I think. > >>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 world, regardless of their character, relation to the >>Internet, or willingness and ability to participate conscientiously >>in its functioning, may be both a member of ICANN and a candidate to >>its board of directors? This is to turn democracy on its head. As >>always in such undefined situations, those who wish to control and >>manipulate will find it easy to do so, since there will be no >>structure impeding them from imposing their own. He who organizes >>controls, as is well known. >> > >Once again, I recall a criteria has been spelled out at one point in >Singapore. But then again, we should avoid any effort to *filter* = >candidates >since that itself biases the outcome. > >>10. We see no need for a nomination committee, or for an electoral >>committee. These are tasks for the ICANN executive. >> >>And who is this executive? Is it not persons who must be empowered >>by the membership, which at first is not yet formed? In the chaotic >>and anarchic membership situation created by the foregoing >>principles, any two or more persons masquerading as the interim >>executive will have no trouble at all in manipulating the >>candidature and election of the At-large directors. There must be >>committees; as many as there are tasks to be performed; in order >>that the power to control events be distributed and therefore >>limited. The constant pretence that organization can be avoided will >>per force result in an undesirable organization. Just as nature >>abhors a vacuum, so human organizations abhor undefined >>responsibilities, which are invariably assumed by those interested >>in using the power that comes with them for their own ends. >> >>Our comments end here at the last recommendation. As stated earlier, >>the comments given here are poor because their subject is poor. We >>remain amazed that such poverty of thought could result from such >>richness of initiative on the part of so many. And again, we say >>that those who have reduced the rich suggestions offered in good >>faith by the potential members of ICANN to such poor recommendations >>stand aside to let those willing and able to provide ICANN with a >>better foundation for its future take their place. >> > >There are always varied perspectives. A lesson may be not to pre-judge >quickly and not to think that everyoneelse is wrong. These perspectives >have merit and need to be studied in their contexts. > >These are my personal views. > >Nii > > > > -- [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