> > > 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.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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.
> 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.
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.
It is in our interest that the circus end.
> 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.
-- 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