Re: [ga] significant user representation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and all,

  It is or it has seemed true that any stated position by the ALAC,
or position papers of or regarding same are only those of the
ALAC staff.  Further it has been broadly considered that the
ALAC has serious legitimacy problems regarding representation
of stakeholders/users as it's membership reg's are restrictive
in the extreme.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>    It might be helpful if I clarify my intended use of the word
> "activist".
> I really did not mean it in a derogatory manner as some have
> apparently
> interpreted it.  Regardless of how anyone might define the word, I
> support the right for "activists" to participate in the process just
> like "non-activists".  My intended meaning was simply "those who are
> very active in the process".  The point I was trying to make is that a
>
> small group of very active people in a group do not necessarily
> represent the views of the larger group they claim to represent.  As
> Joop pointed out, in democracies it is usually the case that it is a
> small group of active participants who keep it functioning, and that
> is
> fine.  But I personally believe that trying to evaluate the level of
> represenativeness of any individual or group putting forth views is
> useful.  As I said before, even if they are not deemed to be very
> representative, their comments should still be considered, but the
> weight attributed should be considered in light of the broader
> community
> if that is possible.
>
> I think a good example of my point is the ALAC.  For several years
> now,
> the ALAC, as a committee tasked with helping to organize at-large
> community participation, has been putting forth position statements as
>
> coming from the full at-large community when in fact it appears that
> they mostly, if not exclusively, are the views of the committee itself
>
> (and maybe a subset of the committee) with minimal if any input from
> the
> broader at-large community.  If I am correct in my assessment of this,
>
> that does not mean that views from the committee should be ignored; I
> just believe that they should be received with the understanding that
> they are from a small group of individuals and not necessarily
> representative of the broader at-large community.  Moreover, if the
> views are the result of outreach and input from the broader community,
>
> then that should be documented in the statement.
>
>
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Information Services
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>         From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
> On Behalf Of kidsearch
>         Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:48 PM
>         To: Prophet Partners Inc.; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>         Subject: Re: [ga] significant user representation
>
>
>         Now I understand the comment. Thanks.
>
>                 ----- Original Message -----
>                 From: Prophet Partners Inc.
> <mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>                 To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>                 Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:35 PM
>                 Subject: Re: [ga] significant user representation
>
>                 Hi Chris,
>
>                 My interpretation of Chuck's comment to you last week
> is
> that he implies public comment should come from a publicly appointed
> spokesperson(s) to be valid, otherwise the opinion only represents a
> few
> so-called activists. His solution of empowering the public via more
> TLD
> choices is only a solution for a subset of the public community and
> not
> all registrants. Consumer choice is a perfectly acceptable solution in
> a
> truly free and competitive market environment, but in a single
> supplier
> market, it simply doesn't work.
>
>
>                 Sincerely,
>                 Ted
>                 Prophet Partners Inc.
>                 http://www.ProphetPartners.com
> <http://www.ProphetPartners.com>
>                 http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
> <http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com>
>
>
>
>                         ----- Original Message -----
>                         From: kidsearch
> <mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>                         To: Prophet Partners Inc.
> <mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>                         Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:43 PM
>                         Subject: Re: [ga] significant user
> representation
>
>                         Ted, I don't remember seeing where Chuck
> disagrees with you about the ability to comment publicly. Could you
> provide a quote on that?
>
>
>                                 ----- Original Message -----
>                                 From: Prophet Partners Inc.
> <mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>                                 To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>                                 Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006
> 10:46
> AM
>                                 Subject: Re: [ga] significant user
> representation
>
>                                 Hi Chuck,
>
>                                 You said "I believe that giving users
> more meaningful choices of TLDs has the potential of giving users, at
> least registrants, a voice through their buying choices."
>
>                                 That is only looking at half the
> picture, namely new registrants who have a CHOICE of TLDs before they
> establish a website. Existing registrants with established websites
> have
> their hands tied, regardless of how many new TLDs are introduced and
> can
> be severely impacted by poor policy making or irresponsible decisions.
>
> These proposed .biz/.info/.org registry agreements are a perfect
> example. The user community needs a way voice to its opinions during
> the
> decision making process and before these bad policies are formed.
>
>                                 A new registrant is like someone who
> is
> looking to plant a tree seed and has many locations from which to
> choose. On the other hand, an existing registrant is like someone who
> has already planted a tree seed. Once established, it is difficult to
> move and it becomes increasingly harder to move as the roots grow
> deeper.
>
>                                 Sincerely,
>                                 Ted
>                                 Prophet Partners Inc.
>                                 http://www.ProphetPartners.com
> <http://www.ProphetPartners.com>
>                                 http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
> <http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com>
>
>
>                                 ----- Original Message -----
>                                 From: Joop Teernstra
> <mailto:terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>                                 To: Gomes, Chuck
> <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>                                 Cc: kidsearch
> <mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>                                 Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006
> 9:12
> AM
>                                 Subject: [ga] significant user
> representation
>
>                                 At 06:00 a.m. 3/09/2006, Gomes, Chuck
> wrote:
>
>
>
>                                 Chris,
>
>                                 As I tried to communicate on a
> previous
> post on this list, I have always supported a means of user
> representation but have never seen a solution that has really
> represented a significant sample of users.  I also recognize though
> that
> the same is true of some of the GNSO constituencies, so it is a
> problem
> that still needs a solution.  Simply creating a solution that gives a
> new group a voice that is captured by a few activists seems to simply
> repeat what already seeing.  That is why I stated before that I
> believe
> that giving users more meaningful choices of TLDs has the potential of
>
> giving users, at least registrants, a voice through their buying
> choices.  I am not opposed to other approaches as well, but I believe
> that they need to be representative of the broader community of users
> and not just a small group.
>
>
>
>                                 Chuck,
>
>                                 The main reason why only "activists"
> remained was the continued refusal by ICANN to recognize the right of
> At Large (or Individual Domain Name Owner)  representation to become a
>
> meaningful part of the decisionmaking process.
>                                 The original 143.806 individuals (the
> original ICANN At Large "members") interested to vote for their own
> ICANN director, especially in North America and Europe were a large
> enough group of registrants to form a hard-to-capture and
> representative
> sample.
>
>                                 It takes a lot of stubborn staying
> power
> to keep on spending time and money in the face of
>                                 rejection and hostility, not to
> mention
> character assassination and active sabotage, and only the kind of
> people
> that are generally labeled as "activists" can bring this up.
>                                 The rest is eroded away.
>
>                                 For their  commitment to the cause of
> the registering public alone, these "activists", would likely be
> elected
> as representatives, if domain name Registrants had the incentive and
> the
> procedures to do so.
>
>                                 Democratic policy making  does not
> work
> by taking "significant samples".  It is driven by small numbers of
> people who care and majorities who agree with them.
>
>
>                                 --Joop--
>
>                                 www <http://www.icannatlarge.com/>
> .icannatlarge.com <http://www.icannatlarge.com/>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>                                 No virus found in this incoming
> message.
>                                 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>                                 Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database:
> 268.12.1/440 - Release Date: 9/6/06
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>                 No virus found in this incoming message.
>                 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>                 Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 -
> Release Date: 9/7/06
>
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827