Jim and all,
Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > > > One person, one vote. This rule falls directly out of the "rough
> > > > consensus" mandate.
> > >
> > > I would have to dispute this. There is simply no relationship
> > > between the two concepts.
> >
> > Voting and "rough consensus", you mean?
>
> No. I meant that there is no logical connection between "One person, one
> vote" and "the rough consensus mandate". If one person represents many
> parties, that must be taken into consideration when deciding whether
> rough consensus has been reached.
Exactly correct. And this has been the downfall of the MoU process, not
necessarly
the MoU itself. That shows a leadership problem.
>
>
> > > One of the (many) reasons that people refuse to sign the gTLD MOU is
> > > this sort of reasoning. Both EuroISPA and ISPA publish their
> > > memberships. In both cases the member organizations appoint
> > > individuals to represent their interests. How we do that is not
> > > really germane. ISPA's members join ISPA to simplify and reduce
> > > the cost of representation in London. EuroISPA's members created
> > > EuroISPA to simply and reduce the cost of representation in Brussels.
> > > The existence of EuroISPA means that when Europe's ISPs want to talk
> > > to someone at the European Commission, they don't have to send 500
> > > separate delegations.
> >
> > However, that single representative to the EC does not have 500
> > votes in the EC. He/she has *no* votes in the EC, I'll
> > wager, and instead is simply a lobbyist for ISP related issues.
>
> ISPA UK has a single representative to EuroISPA. That single
> representative has one vote on the EuroISPA council.
I take it that that representative first gets a vote of confidance from
the ISPA UK membership befor voting on the EuroISPA council?
>
>
> EuroISPA discussed alternative weighted voting schemes and may
> yet adjust the articles to permit them. In the end we decided that
> each member should have one vote because the disparity between
> the number of members represented was simply not that great.
>
> ISPA UK is a member of EuroISPA. It is not a member of the European
> Union. The proposal is that ISPA UK's members should sign the
> gTLD MOU and join the PAB. ISPA UK has no vote in European Union
> deliberations. ISPA UK's members would certainly expect to have
> votes on the PAB.
All the ISPA's members should have one fote on PAB at the very least. As
with anyother Internet citizen.
>
>
> > > Neither do they want to have to appoint individual spokesman on the
> > > PAB.
> >
> > They don't have to. You can sign, and carry a persuasive, politically
> > powerful voice to the floor, just as your lobbyist to the EC can.
>
> ISPA UK's representative to EuroISPA is NOT a lobbyist. We lobby
> the Commission. We vote at EuroISPA.
>
> > > In any case, under the current scheme, it is the ITU's responsibility
> > > to determine whether we in fact represent the organisations that we claim
> > > to - not yours.
> >
> > It isn't ITU's responsibility, either.
>
> In fact it is. The MOU clearly states that either the ITU or the
> POC can invite organizations to sign. It does not give any power to
> the PAB in this regard.
And this is a very important structual problem with the MoU.
>
>
> Section 4: "Signatories may sign at the invitation of the Depository
> [the ITU] or the gTLD Policy Oversight Committee."
>
> > Then there is the matter of a form of cheating that all of a sudden
> > becomes possible -- a British ISP, for example, could be
> > represented two times -- it could sign on its own, and it could be
> > represented by UK ISPA. Of course, it could be represented many
> > times over, depending on how many organizations it belonged to.
>
> If this is cheating, then ISOC is cheating. The last time that I
> looked, I counted a dozen "ISOC" signatures on the gTLD MOU. There
> was ISOC, then ISOC here, ISOC there, ...
>
> In fact, we aren't talking about cheating in any form. We are talking
> about N signatories to the gTLD MOU choosing to appoint a single
> representative who will vote on behalf of each. Your approach casually
> deprives signatories of their votes.
Certianly does. However this point has been discussed several times befor
without getting much real attention or consideration. Change here is absolutely
necessary.
>
>
> > > While it may be difficult for you to understand, we believe that the
> > > PAB is unrepresentative and commands little support in the real world.
> > > On the other hand both ISPA UK and EuroISPA are representative and have
> > > real support. We can bring sorely needed legitimacy to the gTLD MOU
> > > and we can persuade others to do the same.
> > >
> > > But there is a simple quid pro quo: if ISPA UK's 83+ members appoint
> > > someone to represent their interests, we want the fact that that person
> > > is speaking on behalf of 83+ organisations and their million+
> > > customers to be recognised.
> >
> > Following your reasoning, if you signed for EuroISPA, then you believe
> > that you should be given 500+ votes, because, according to your
> > letter, EuroISPA represents between 500 and 1000 ISPs. Or
> > alternatively, the various members of EuroISPA could sign, and between
> > them command 500 to 1000 votes.
>
> You may find it amusing to argue like this, but what I actually proposed
> was that our members sign, each appointing a representative. In cases
> where one person represented many signatories, that person should have
> a proportionate number of votes.
I don't entirely agree here. If the orginization has a imporportionate
desperity
in it's membership form other orginizations represented on PAB or POC, than more
representatives should be representitive of that orignization each wit one vote.
>
>
> > That is, turn PAB completely over to EuroISPA, ignoring any
> > representative rights of the current signatories; or spend a couple of
> > months in a completed procedural tangle that might never be resolved.
>
> The tangle that you propose is entirely yours, and typical of the sort
> of "hey, let's make things really complicated" attitude that has
> typified the history of the gTLD MOU.
Or lets make more restrictive.
>
>
> What I am really proposing is that the Internet community take over the
> PAB. I think that industry in particular should join en masse. Yes,
> EuroISPA's members should join. The CIX should urge its members to join
> on the same basis. So should every other trade association in the Internet.
Also every Internet citizen should have a vote on PAB. POC should allow
every Domain Name holder to have a vote on POC as well.
>
>
> It is in our interest that the circus end.
I agree.
>
>
> > What would work to achieve good, though, would be for EuroISPA to sign
> > the MoU, and to get as many other groups as possible to sign and
> > participate, as well. It is simply true that the MoU and EuroISPA
> > have many common goals, and share a common belief that the Internet is
> > international, and not the property of the USG. It is also true that
> > many of the ideas you have presented have already been bruited in PAB;
> > with your participation they could very well pass.
>
> I doubt very much that the EuroISPA Council will have been persuaded by
> your arguments. We have not signed the gTLD MOU up until now because
> the consensus has been that those involved would gleefully include our
> members in their count of supporters while minimizing our actual influence
> through procedural devices - just as you have outlined above.
Exactly right. And I will repete, this is one of the major structual problems
that must be removed from the articles of the MoU.
>
>
> --
> Jim Dixon Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council President
> Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
Regards,
-- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:22 PST