[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] IFWP MAC Comments of Tom Lowenhaupt, pt.1
Diane, Tom and all,
Diane Cabell wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > COMMENT #1 (....)
> > I'd like to see language indicating that individuals should not be
> > excluded from membership merely because an SO claims to represent them.
> > Perhaps the "primarily" in Principle 1 was intended to serve this
> > purpose, but it remains unclear.
> See Principle #2 at http://www.icann.org/berlin/membership_rec.htm. It says
> > Individuals who are members of the SOs or their constituencies
> > are welcome to join the at-large membership.
> > Second, a basic plank of my candidacy would be a commitment to change
> > the restrictive clause that limits At-large membership to "any Internet
> > user".
> > I'm in favor of universal adult suffrage: All should have a right to
> > participate in electing the Internet governance team. And, while I
> > suspect few will avail themselves of this mechanism, its existence will
> > provide input worthy of our attention.
> They do, but they have to do it online. That is the basic requirement for
> membership and the MAC's position is that it is not an unreasonable demand
> to require people to have access to the technology in order to participate.
> ICANN intends to do most of its communication and voting online. "Regular
> user" is not a requirement, only that one has access.
This a a good and healthy provision for the MAC. It should also apply to the
SO's as well. But as we have seen of late from Esthers comments, and recent
ICANN meeting experience, that the ICANN Interim Board is for the most part,
ignoring those that do not attend the "Whirl Wind Tour" ICANN Meetings, and it
looks as though Berlin is not going to be an exception as it applies to the
> > COMMENT #2
> > I'm for an "individuals-only" At-large membership. Organizations
> > may encourage their individual members to join as ICANN At-large
> > members, but they should gain organizational representation
> > through SO constituencies.
> The SOs were designed to focus on particular, limited policy issues. The
> At-large, on the other hand, is not limited to any one of those issues.
> Your preference for "individuals only" is shared by a strong minority of the
> > COMMENT #4
> > My homeless friend Raphael (and others with financial, social,
> > religious, or political pressures) might find this physical address
> > requirement difficult to fulfill. But for the upcoming election, the
> > loss of some membership might outweigh the potential loss from fraud.
> Yes, he might have a problem, but we made a judgment call that the validity
> of the ICANN election process itself required some way to verify the
> authenticity of individual members. The technology simply makes it too easy
> to spoof identity and votes. Perhaps some procedure could be established
> for hardship cases and some other form of identity could be used. Can you
> think of anything?
Yes, I have a suggestion and I believe that it has been made before at least
by myself on the MAC mailing depository list as well as a few others. The use
of existing technology such as PKI can be easily used and in fact is used
currently in several states in the U.S. (Florida, Texas, Minnesota, Illinois)
verifying individuals using their E-Mail addresses to a specific individual,
and they are unique, hence verifiable. I also believe that the U.S. Military
personnel overseas use PKI as well for voting verification and actual voting
> > 7. If desired, ICANN may appoint a committee (a) to assist
> > in soliciting candidates in regions where there are few
> > candidates or (b) to oversee election details such as
> > fulfillment of candidate criteria, however it shall not be a
> > function of such committee to filter, screen or otherwise
> > evaluate candidates on any grounds other than for failure to
> > supply the required campaign documentation of Section below,
> > in a true, accurate and timely fashion.
> > COMMENT #7
> > First, the "or" in "ICANN may appoint a committee (a) to assist in
> > soliciting candidates in regions where there are few candidates or (b)
> > to oversee election details few candidates" seems to limit ICANN's power
> > here to either (a) or (b). I'd eliminate it. Both might be necessary in
> > a single election.
> We certainly intended it to be and/or.
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208