|
Donald Langenberg
- posted on 2000-09-24 12:40:56
|
|
I would surmise that you have not counted me among the four (of seven). But just to make sure, I am certainly not a member of the referenced technical communities. I very much see myself as representing two large and important user communities, the research community and the education community (including elementary and secondary as well as post-secondary). I also strongly believe that, if elected to the ICANN board, I would assume responsibility for representing ALL users to the best of my ability. The aforementioned communities would cease to be my constituency and instead simply become the worlds in which most of my life's experience has been gained,
|
|
Harris Miller
- posted on 2000-09-22 06:04:18
|
|
I am not a member of a technical community nor a carpetbagger. I am truly interested and able to represent the broader user community.
I do not think your characterization that one with a technical background is usurping and representation. The rich variety of views among the various candidates makes clear that each should be considered as an individual, rather than clumped into a category.
|
|
Lawrence Lessig
- posted on 2000-09-20 08:54:35
|
|
I don't think someone should be
disqualified from being an at-large
candidate merely because they are a
techie. The two other candidates whose
work I know best -- Karl and Barbara --
are clearly from the tech community; but
they both have a vision that is far broader
than code.
But there is a more fundamental issue in
the question which I do agree the at large
members must consider. The real issue
is how to assure an at large process that
functions as a check on the board, to
guarantee that the board does not
become captured. That requires a
broader perspective -- one that identifies
the core values in the net, and that can
challenge these increasingly bogus
claims of lawyers that the net must
change to make it safe for intellectual
property law. The greatest danger is
selling out to those who say the law
demands it. It doesn't, and what's needed
is a perspective that can see, and say,
why.
|
|
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D.
- posted on 2000-09-19 22:47:56
|
|
Thsi is an important question. I would:
1. Require that candidates reveal their associations so that the membership is aware of conflicting interests.
2. Increase the number of At-Large members from the user community (through more aggressive information campaigns and easier registration procedures) to water down any crossover control from the technical communities.
|
|
Karl Auerbach
- posted on 2000-09-19 21:20:59
|
|
I work for a large Internet related company, and my wife owns another Internet related company - so presumably I could be part of the DNSO business constituency. I work with several non-profit groups (theatre and historical preservation) so I could presumably be part of the non-commercial constituency. I own trademarks and am an attorney (non-practicing, but I hold the credential nevertheless) who is a member of the California Bar's section on Intellectual Property, so I could be a part of the IP constituency.
So, am I a carpetbagger? My answer would be strong no.
There are many who assert that if it were not for my work via the Boston Working Group we would not have even the limited at-large we have today. And I've been one of the strongest advocates of an Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency in the DNSO and of a meaningful General Assembly in the DNSO.
But you do raise an interesting issue - why should there be DNSO constituencies at all? Why not simply give the sole right of voting in the DNSO to people who are willing to expend the effort to participate in the DNSO - thus forcing all the things that are now constituencies to try to push their agendas by convincing the people who actually hold the voting power? That would remove the multiple-representation that is inherent in ICANN's constituency structure.
|
