Laura and all,
Thank you very much for your comments and dialoge here Laura,
it is much appritiated by myself and I am sure with many of our
[INEGroup's] members as well a the NCDNHC.
In your comments you did not address some of my questions
directly that I had posed to Kathy and the NCDNH members
very clearly. So I woul like to ask some of them again so as to
gain a more accurate understanding if I may.
One of my concerns as I am others have stated on many occasions
is the limitation on the size of the ICANN Membership organization.
What in your conversations with Kathy did you or anyone at the NCDNHC
meeting in Los Angeles discuss along these lines?
Another of my questions (See below in my response to Kathy and
this list) was, "Why were only some "Invited" groups allowed to attend?"
And as a follow up to these two questions: Will in the future, these
meeting be open to all whom wish to attend that have been involved in this
process in the future?
In closing Laura, I want to thank you again for you interesting and
somewhat informative response. I look forward to your answers
directly to my questions for our [INEGroup's] members, so that
they may also be included and aware.
Bailyn, Laura wrote:
> Jeff and all,
>
> We thank Kathy for sharing the ncdnhc's and her own hopes for and concerns
> about ICANN's At-Large membership.
>
> To clarify some confusion: the conference call in which Kathy participated
> was not an ICANN meeting but rather an informal, information-gathering
> session organized by Common Cause as part of its independent effort to
> observe and make recommendations regarding ICANN's At-Large Membership
> formation and election procedures. They're undertaking this project in
> conjunction with CDT and other partners, with the support of the Markle
> Foundation.
>
> Part of the group's observation and information-gathering efforts include
> following the ncdnhc discussion list so that the crucial non-commercial
> perspective within ICANN is better understood and accounted for in their
> effort -- as well as reviewing all previous ICANN membership discussion
> group lists, MAC reports and relevant Berkman archives.
>
> The session which Kathy described was not recorded. It was not really
> intended to solicit or produce new ideas or opinions about the At-Large
> Membership. Rather, it was simply an efficient and friendly way for some
> new observers to process a wide range of views about the At-Large
> membership. Various perspectives were heard in separate sessions so that
> each would have ample time to be heard.
>
> I hope that this is a helpful clarification and response to Kathy's question
> as well. Also, I would like to reiterate (as I had mentioned at the Los
> Angeles ncdnhc meeting) that further information about the Markle Foundation
> grant proposal application procedure can be found on our website,
> www.markle.org.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Laura Bailyn
> The Markle Foundation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: At Large Membership Markle Meeting Report
>
> Kathy and all,
>
> Thank you for sharing this note with us, as I am sure it will be
> helpful for some to get a idea anyway of how these meetings
> were conducted and some ideas of what the ICANN membership
> organization can or should be about.
>
> In this light I have some comments and questions I would like
> to share with everyone and especially with you. (See more
> specifically below your comments).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Sorry for delay in posting this report.
> > About two weeks ago, I sent a note to this list asking for views on the At
> > Large Membership. Thanks to everyone who responded! Your comments were
> very
> > helpful in the preparation of my remarks.
> >
> > What happened: as you know the Markle Foundation has made a very large
> grant
> > directly to ICANN for organization of the At Large Membership. At the
> same
> > time, the Markle Foundation has given grants to a set of organizations
> > including CDT, Carter Center, Common Cause and American Libraries Assoc.
> to
> > help guide and advise it regarding the creation of the At Large
> Membership.
>
> I am somewhat puzzled as to why it is perceived and/or needed that
> any large sum for the formation of the ICANN Membership Organization.
> Didn't ICANN already have a Membership Discussion group sometime
> back that was a mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])? Shouldn't
> it be incumbent that anyone and everyone should have had the opportunity
> to participate in these discussions? When and where did ICANN
> announce and/or post any information about this meeting? Why were
> only some "Invited" groups allowed to attend? Or was this even
> so?
>
> >
> >
> > This group then arranged one day where it met in separate conference calls
> > with representatives of the noncommercial community, and separately ICANN,
> > the technical community and the business community. I was part of the
> first
> > group, noncommercial, with people including Prof. Michael Froomkin, Prof.
> > David Post, and Theresa Amato (nader's group) also asked to talk.
>
> I am presuming you are talking about the meeting in LA??
>
> >
> >
> > We talked about our hope for and concerns about the At Large Membership.
> > Overwhelmingly, we told the Markle group that we thought the barriers to
> > joining the At Large membership should be low, but that the Membership
> should
> > be given lots of good, concise, and accurate summary materials regarding
> the
> > substantive issues that ICANN is dealing with at the time (materials which
> do
> > not now exist and are actually difficult to write well).
>
> I believe there is some good and concise background information
> in the Berkman Center archives of the ICANN Membership Discussion
> list. And there may likely still be some additional background in the
> older [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well, if I am not mistaken.
>
> >
> >
> > We also overwhelmingly told the group that we thought the expectations of
> the
> > Membership were too great. Based on the rhetoric we had heard, we felt
> that
> > the At Large Membership was being viewed as the magical piece of ICANN
> which
> > would make all other problems go away.
>
> By "Too Great" what do you mean here specifically Kathy? Are you
> talking in terms of the size of the ICANN membership? Or???
>
> > We pointed out that even if the
> > Membership is well and carefully formed, protecting democratic principles
> --
> > and putting good practices into place -- remains a concern throughout
> ICANN
> > including in General Assembly and DNSO, in comment periods before the
> ICANN
> > Board, etc.
>
> Good point, and yes, I believe this is certainly a serious concern,
> especially
> in terms of what has occurred of late on the DNSO lists and at the LA
> meeting.
>
> >
> >
> > The noncommercial segment of the Markle At Large Meeting then ended and we
> > visitors left the call. I had earlier asked if I might stay and just
> listen
> > to the subsequent discussions of ICANN leaders and technical and business
> (so
> > I could let you know their views). I was told that only those groups
> chosen
> > by the Markle Foundation could participate in these discussions.
>
> I think that not allowing anyone to continue to listen at least was
> completely inappropriate, and engenders, or at least makes me believe
> that the ICANN and now it seems the Markle Foundation is not to
> be trusted as to accountability. In other words, I smell a rat here.
> I am sure this rat will appear sooner or later. >:(
>
> >
> >
> > Accordingly, I would like to ask if Andrew Shapiro of Markle or Alan
> Davidson
> > of CDT would like to share some of the thoughts they heard from other
> > communities and their views of this meeting.
>
> I would further like to ask if this conference call was recorded?
> Otherwise
> any information we receive from Andrew Shapiro is second hand, and less
> reliable. Isn't it in the ICANN bylaws that these meetings are supposed
> to be recorded? I believe it is. And if I am not mistaken, they are
> supposed to be published within 7? days...
>
> > Clearly, the At Large
> > Membership is an area of concern to this Constituency. Thanks for your
> input
> > and work in this area. We understand that you will probably not respond
> > until next week, after the Thanksgiving Holiday in the US.
> >
> > regards, kathy
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> 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
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kindest Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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
