Jonathan, Thomas and all,
Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> Thanks for your note--I've interspersed some thoughts below. What's the
> Communisphere Project? Sounds intriguing. ...JZ
>
> At 04:16 AM 12/23/98 , you wrote:
> >
> >1. The first relates to the forum and mechanisms for the Representation
> > in Cyberspace Study. I presume that it will be an open examination
> > conducted largely on the Internet. What is the appropriate location
> > to submit / post messages such as this? (In the spirit of openness
> > and the aggressive timeframe I've taken the liberty of posting this
> > letter on the IFWP list.) The permanence of a web page is quite
> > desirable. Also, an occasional chat might add to the discussion.
I would also be very nice if there were a regular mailing list to have OPEN
discussions as well. Is this being considered?
>
>
> Yes, the medium should mirror the message--we need to be able to conduct
> the study in an open way. There's the barest beginnings of a web page at
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs. We're planning to set up a listserv just
> after the new year, and will seek to make it not redundant with whatever
> mechanism the ICANN membership advisory committee sets up.
What seems to be the delay with setting up this discussion list?
>
>
> >2. What is the "aggressive timeframe" the study is following?
>
> We want to have something to show by early March, a time when the
> membership advisory committee and ICANN board may meet in Singapore. (See
> http://www.icann.org/meetings.html) But that something could be a means of
> arriving at reasonable and widely-accepted solutions, rather than the
> solutions themselves. I don't think anything's going to happen deus ex
> machina.
Good thinking Jonathan. In addition one might note that given the
poor attendance in both the Boston and Brussels meetings the earlier
the SIngapore meeting and the discussions list for the membership
committee can be set up the better. Is the Date for the Singapore set
at this time?
>
>
> >3. A mid-January face-to-face seems a bit too aggressive. Considering
> > the season and importance of the issues I recommend late January as
> > the earliest date, with contextual materials distributed several
> > weeks prior.
>
> How does the 23rd of January sound, the fourth Saturday of January?
Are you referring to a open meeting here Jonathan? If so, where and which
meeting are you referring to?
>
>
> >As this entire discussion is being conducted under the umbrella of
> >"privatizing the Internet" I suspect this proposal will seem odd at
> >first examination. But governments have unique responsibilities and
> >needs that might warrant representation on the ICANN Board. At this
> >early stage I'd like to interject this membership as one worthy of
> >examination.
>
> The ICANN bylaws contemplate a government advisory committee of some kind,
> I think. Defining just who is (and perhaps isn't) to be encompassed by the
> notion of an "at large Internet membership" is one of the hard
> questions--particularly to imagine that nine members are meant to represent it.
The perception of the difficulty of a formation of a Individual Membership
Organization as part of the ICANN seems very odd and strange from our
point of view given the precepts of the White Paper. We ( INEGroup )
outlined a very simple and inclusive method for providing for an Individual
Membership Organization in our submission(s) to both the IANA and
the NTIA during the "Comments Period" that are available for public
review and have received and continue to receive wide exceptance.
>
>
> >In closing, let me express delight in seeing consideration given for how
> >the "interests of future Internet users be accounted for today?"
> >However, it brings to mind the size of the ICANN Board. Nine At-large
> >members to represent the entire planet? Some consideration of size is
> >another appropriate topic for consideration.
>
> Yes! Perhaps one way to think of this is imagining increasing the numbers
> of at-large board members should the number of SO's go beyond three, to
> keep a sort of parity between the number of SO-derived members and the
> at-large ones. Of course, the problem of representation is difficult
> enough that it's not clear twenty, say, could do the job any better than
> nine. Getting at the other powers of membership--say, a vote among the
> membership, not just the at-large directors, needed to amend the articles
> of incorporation--may help here.
It seems to us ( INEGroup ) that any policies or amendments of articles
MUST be voted upon by the Individual Membership Organization before
those amendments or policies could be considered creditable in order to
meet the requirements of the White Paper.
>
>
> >Please keep the undersigned appraised of the Representation in
> >Cyberspace Study activities and consider him available for working group
> >activity.
>
> Absolutely. Thanks for your note.
>
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Thomas Lowenhaupt
> >The Communisphere Project
> >Jackson Heights, New York
> >
>
> Jon Zittrain
> Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________
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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
