Re: [Membership] membership votes domain names INTEGRITY

[Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@law.harvard.edu>]

You seem to be suggesting that along with a membership and voting
structure, ICANN needs a Bill of Rights and constitutional-level
protection.  Some of that is provided by the Articles of Incorporation,
which may be amended only by a 2/3 vote of the membership.  Thus the
members can bind the board to their concerns, and part of our work is to
find what level of agreement should be required for what decisions.

Another point you make is the need for a common understanding of what the
organization exists to do.  Others, such as Einar Stefferud, have made
similar calls for a recognition of common values.  It might make governance
easier if we could find a deep set of shared values, but the definition of
those values/goals is itself contentious.  

In trying to develop and justify a membership model to all the
organization's potential members, I would suggest we need to start with the
broad base of consensus that doesn't get into specifics, such as the White
Paper principles of stability, representation, and competition, and then
find structures from there that help us to reach a more specific consensus.
 The different types of discussion proposed, including the mailing lists,
discussion spaces, polls and non-binding votes, all seem to be good ways of
teasing out the consensus of participants and generating building blocks
for the organization.

--Wendy

At 10:06 PM 2/3/99 , BRPWIT@aol.com wrote:
>Russ et al:
>
>Your response to me on domain name appropriateness, control, freedom of speech
>got me to thinking instead of reacting to your negative message.
>
>Policies need to be re-thought of who members are, how they are allowed to
>vote, how names are issued ,etc, etc,etc.
>
>We keep talking of individual votes, corporate blocks, e-mail owners, domain
>owners, regional blocks, cyberspace weenies and so on.
>
>Have we identified the Issues that need to be resolved and controlled? I don't
>think we have as of yet. This is critical. If we don't know what we want to
>solve and control, how can we decide organizational structures, authorities,
>etc>?
>
>Please: look at the discussions- Domain Names, Freedom of speech, ownership ,
>regional vs cyber, etc. Even in this great democracy we do NOT allow majority
>vote to automatically rule everything. If we did their would be no minority
>rights ( that may be what you are after) but it needs to be identified and
>expalined.
>
>Russ: as i have stated- I want no part of a single organization controlling
>everything- that smacks of the book 1984. in fact in the San fernado valley we
>are trying to separate from LA because it is too big and we are the left outs.
>
>You want freedom of speech, Russ, I want that as well. However, responibility
>and integrity goes along with having this freedom.
>
>Et Al: Their are many purveyors of "information" that would choose to take
>DOMAIN NAMES that the vast majority would find abhorrent let alone names that
>could be used to attack various groups of people. I am not allowed to swear or
>use foul language in these communications - why should someone be allowed to
>use them in Domain names.
>
>Lets identify the problems - then decide who and how they will be authorized.
>As I send we have our freedoms and laws - vastly different than many other
>palces - why should one group of PAID PEOPLE decide who and how the internet
>will work. 
>
>Glad to see that you recognize that their are some VALUE ADDED Businesses that
>utilize Domain names in a responsible way.
>
>thanks steve witkin

--
Wendy Seltzer
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
wseltzer@law.harvard.edu || wendy@seltzer.com 
Representation in Cyberspace Study: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/