George Conrades writes:
> So my suggestion(s) is/are: No classes. Individuals and
> organizations can be members and get one vote each. Anyone
> coming up with the initiation fee and the necessary
> identification can be a member.
Michael Sondow:
+ Sounds good.
Nonsense Michael. Putting organ
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:20:56 -0500
> From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
>
> > it does seem like the 'infrastructure' is in place for a
> > tree of auditable information.
>
>
I wrote:
> Unfortunately our friendly neighbourhood ISP
> is no more/less trustworthy than the local
> supermarket or used car dealer.
> In my opinion we will have to come up with
> our own way to verify identity. We can't even
> trust governments world wide to do our work
> for us.
Kerry M
Bob,
> > it does seem like the 'infrastructure' is in place for
> > a tree of auditable information.
>
> Unfortunately our friendly neighbourhood ISP
> is no more/less trustworthy than the local
> supermarket or used car dealer.
...
> In my opinion we will have to come up with
> our own wa
I wrote:
> I'll just form a thousand dummy companies
> each with their own membership all paid up.
> Presto, I own the Internet or a reasonable
> facsimile thereof. Doesn't work. Will never
> work. Is undemocratic and basically evil.
Daniel Kaplan replies:
+ We won't make any progress if you bel
Kerry Miller writes:
> Suppose that every purchaser of internet service fills out a form
> which is registered at the next higher level of access, be it ISP
> or DN management or whatever. Im not fluent in the terminology here
> (LDAP?), but it does seem like the 'infrastructure' is in place for
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Suppose that every purchaser of internet service fills out a form
> which is registered at the next higher level of access, be it ISP or
> DN management or whatever. I'm not fluent in the terminology here
> (LDAP?), but it does seem like the 'infrastructure' is in place for
Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:29:50 -0500
> > From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [IFWP] Re: list Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
> >
> > I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and
>
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 22:29:50 -0500
> From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [IFWP] Re: list Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
>
> I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and
> identification.
> How do you know who is cas
Daniel Kaplan rejoinders:
> even in the most restrictive scenario (for instance, if membership
> was limited to IP address / DN holders), you would qualify!
I would never join an organization none of my
friends and neighbours could participate in.
I am not one of the elite nor do I consider
Daniel Kaplan writes:
+ So my suggestion(s) is/are: No classes. Individuals and organizations
+ can be members and get one vote each. Anyone coming up with the
+ initiation fee and the necessary identification can be a member.
I'll just form a thousand dummy companies
each with their own membe
tated positions
>
> if the presenters on the Senate floor can get emotional - so can I
> thanks
> steve witkin
> RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
> Date: 99-02-11 11:56:03 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Conrades)
> Sender: [EMAIL
ECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: 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 thin
PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
>
> Mr. Conrades writes:
> ? ... I am inclined to think we should move slowly on opening up
> ? membership in an unlimited way UNTIL we understand how the membership
&
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> My own suggestion: no classes. Only people as members. Anyone coming
> up with the initiation fee and the necessary identification can be a
> member.
Nii replies:
+ I find this option very appealing.
Minus the fee and I'd agree completely. Recall
people in stations ot
George asks:
> What's your suggestion for the membership model and how will it work?
Membership open to anyone who can access e-mail,
can verify their identity and participates in a
roughly civil manner. Members determine *all*
places on the body charged with regulating the
technical funct
ob Allisat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 10:53 AM
To: George Conrades
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
George writes:
> Until the PROCESS is better understood so we can open it up
George writes:
> Until the PROCESS is better understood so we can open it up with a
> sense that it will scale.
PROCESS, my dear, SCHMOSSES. *We* are the process. I am
*part* of the process, intergral to it's evolution. The
same is true of everyone and anyone who, within civil
limits, choos
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
Mr. Conrades writes:
? ... 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 against a more understood or qualified database of
? constituents.
You are telling me I should be limited until
I someho
On 11-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> >
> > Unfortunately, I seem to have done something to trigger Mihael Sondow
> > into attacking everything I say.
>
> You were making pronouncements about who should be included in the first
> DNSO membership. Don't you think th
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
>
> Unfortunately, I seem to have done something to trigger Mihael Sondow
> into attacking everything I say.
You were making pronouncements about who should be included in the first
DNSO membership. Don't you think that's a pretty bad idea? The AIP-based
proposal won a l
Kerry Miller a écrit:
>
> > > What we have here is a very serious startup problem of bootstraping from
> > > no members at all to some Interent informed memebers who are dedicated
> > > to openness and due process.
> >
> > And of course Einar Stefferud's going to decide who they are.
> >
>
>
Diane and all,
Diane Cabell wrote:
> I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and identification.
> How do you know who is casting the compulsory vote? And if the voter lies
> about that, how will you prove otherwise. (Questions I throw perhaps
> illogically under the title of "
I'm still missing the link between a vote (or non-vote) and identification.
How do you know who is casting the compulsory vote? And if the voter lies
about that, how will you prove otherwise. (Questions I throw perhaps
illogically under the title of "enforcement.")
I can see where it might reso
Diane,
> > perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the
> > way to go...
>
> How ever would this be enforced?
>
I should have thought the first question is whether it solves or
avoids the problem of fraudulent namebasing (either multiple votes
or bogus addresses) which keeps coming u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>As a gesture of inclusivity towards the customs of countries and
>other than the US, perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the
>way to go. Even if the idea itself is later voted out, its a chance to
>learn something about the actual user popula
Kerry Miller wrote:
> As a gesture of inclusivity towards the customs of countries and
> other than the US, perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the
> way to go. Even if the idea itself is later voted out, its a chance to
> learn something about the actual user population instead of rely
As a gesture of inclusivity towards the customs of countries and
other than the US, perhaps the practice of compulsory voting is the
way to go. Even if the idea itself is later voted out, its a chance to
learn something about the actual user population instead of relying
on assumptions and
e!
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:45:11 -0004:
}
}
}
}> Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}> Subject: Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
}>
}> Einar Stefferud a =E9crit:
}>
}> > What we have here is a very serious startup pro
> Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
>
> Einar Stefferud a =E9crit:
>
> > What we have here is a very serious startup problem of bootstraping from
> > no members at all to some Interent info
Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> What we have here is a very serious startup problem of bootstraping
> from no members at all to some Interent informed memebers who are
> dedicated to openness and due process.
And of course Einar Stefferud's going to decide who they are.
> Surely we cannot feel comof
At 01:39 AM 2/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell a écrit:
>
>> >The fact is that until something happens that directly affects them and
that
>> >they feel they can be an activist about, they will not get involved. And
>> >history tends to indicate that most of those who get involved in such a
>>
Yes Indeed Joop!
What we have here is a very serious startup problem of bootstraping
from no members at all to some Interent informed memebers who are
dedicated to openness and due process.
Surely we cannot feel comofrtable saying the we mus start out with the
least well informed consituencies t
On 09-Feb-99 Michael Sondow wrote:
> These are no more than self-serving lies told by people who are so insecure
> that they fear extinction of their own weak voices in the mass.
> The public is involved in every facet of life, from local community boards
> deciding what is done in their neig
Bill Lovell a écrit:
> >The fact is that until something happens that directly affects them and that
> >they feel they can be an activist about, they will not get involved. And
> >history tends to indicate that most of those who get involved in such a
> >fashion, tend to get involved only for th
Diane Cabell a écrit:
>
> 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.
Why, then , are there no spokespeople for the public interest on the
Membership Advisory Committee?
Greg Skinner a écrit:
> The public has the right to file license challenges against licensees
> they do not feel are acting in the public interest. The public may
> also challenge a licensee at its renewal time.
That's right. There are public review boards. They aren't always active, but
someti
Eric Weisberg a écrit:
> Just because most people are affected by IP and DN allocation
> policies doesn't mean they will participate. We already know THEY
> WON'T!
How do you know that, Eric? Have they been informed about the creation of
ICANN?
> That is why I question the wisdom of register
On 09-Feb-99 Bill Lovell wrote:
> >--
> >"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> >of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> >- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
>
> Is this last supposed to be communicating something, or is it
> j
Ms. Dyson wrote:
> *I* alone am not ICANN; it is a (growing) collection of people,
> including staff, PR consultantsand of course members.
Members? You have no members. As for a collection
it's more like monkeys you've been assembling. Silly
clueless monkeys, a few dorky students, all org
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN
> elections no matter how hard you beat the bushes.
Gee, Eric... how does that explain Mr. Corcker's
participation? I'm sure he's going to vote and if
I beat the bushes with a baseball bat I'd not find
a greater unwa
Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not vote in ICANN
>elections, even if asked, so he proposes going instead with public
>interest organizations having a say in the process. His notions have
>merit, yet notice the assumption that public apathy
At 04:48 PM 2/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 09-Feb-99 Ken Freed wrote:
>> Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
>> vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
>> going instead with public interest organizations having
>> a say in the process. His notions have merit,
On 09-Feb-99 Ken Freed wrote:
> Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
> vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
> going instead with public interest organizations having
> a say in the process. His notions have merit, yet notice
> the assumption that public ap
Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
going instead with public interest organizations having
a say in the process. His notions have merit, yet notice
the assumption that public apathy will prevail. I am not
convinced this wil
I understand Jonathan's point to be that the interests of activist-Internet
users may not coincide with the interests of passive users, and that passive
users should have representation with all other interests that affect and
are affected by the Internet. After all, passive users affect the Inter
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
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.
Diane Cabell
MAC
Eric Weisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do not believe the "general public" has any interest in joining
>our group nor in voting for our board. Thus, there must be some
>other way of protecting their interests. Perhaps there should be
>a "public interest" SO (given that "we" have chosen the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rus Postel) wrote:
>i do not qualify for any of the categories of membership suggested,
>yet i use the internet and believe i have a right to participate in
>democratic decision making.
Good point. I believe every Internet user should have the right to
participate in the deci
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
To: George Conrades; Diane Cabell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
>
> At 19:43 6/02/99 -0500, George Conrades wrote:
> >Joop, what's
Eric Weisberg a écrit:
> I agree that there must be a presumption against any impediment to
> participation and I really appreciate your concern in this
> regard. However, isn't that unnecessary in this organization on
> the following grounds--ICANN's particular and limited purposes
We don't ye
Eric,
This issue has been really troubling me lately. The value of automatic
enlistment of members depends on whether membership is seen as a kind of
"use it or lose it" thing. One conception of ICANN has it performing
functions that affect all internet users, and that therefore should take
the
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
56 matches
Mail list logo
