[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture

[Anupam]

I disagree with Milton's view that issues once "decided" by the constituency
cannot be reopened.  First, given the nature of this constituency, I'm not
sure that many of the issues that are supposedly "decided" are in fact
finalized.  Silence, especially in this context, does not mean acquiescence.
Second, and more importantly, democracies allow for the citizenry to review
earlier decisions--legislation can be rescinded and even constitutions are
open to amendment. 

I understand the value of avoiding endless debates on the same issue, but I
don't think that's what's happening here.

I worry that efforts to squelch debate are used strategically to make sure
that one side continues to control the agenda.

Anupam Chander

on 10/25/01 1:13 PM, Milton Mueller at Mueller at syr.edu wrote:

> Vany;
> Of course the constituency has an
> opportunity for a full, formal vote
> in Marina del Rey and afterwards.
> I have proposed a resolution on .org
> which raises all the issues you want
> to discuss. We will vote on it in MdR
> and online afterwards.
> 
> If you were serious about making
> modifications or revisions to the June
> document, you would have done so
> in July, right after the NC meeting and
> before the Task Force had completed
> its work. You were silent at that time.
> Because neither you nor anyone else
> raised significant objections at the time,
> we assumed that you had no
> objection to what we were doing. That's
> all we can do. Someone who didn't raise
> his or her voice all summer has no right to
> force the entire constituency to re-debate
> issues that were aired back then.
> 
> What you don't seem to appreciate is that
> these voting processes take a great deal
> of time and effort.
> 
> People who hold positions that few others
> support (like you, in this case) can
> paralyze an entire organization by
> forcing a vote on every action that is
> ever taken. 
> 
>>>> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany at sdnp.org.pa> 10/25/01 03:12PM >>>
> Milton:
> 
> It seems that you call an incomplete document sent to the NC
> in July a document, where you yourself states that it can be additions,
> modifications, deletions and or refinement, an official consensus.
> 
> Still is not an official position from the NCDNHC.  Also is false we
> operated
> in a consensus basis because as far as I know maybe only 20 people
> contributed
> to such a document...our members are more than 100.
> 
> Of course, sometimes the silence of some is understood as an aprooval.
> 
> Why are you against that the members of the NCDNHC executes their right
> to vote on issues
> that affects the Non-Commercial sector?
> 
> Remember that one thing is contribute with comments that later are
> grouped in a document.
> Other very different stuff is to ask to all members of our constituency
> by a legimit process of votation, if
> they are agree or not with such document.
> 
> I propose a vote on the document, paragraph by paragrah, sent to the NC
> on July since it is imcomplete and doesn't representes yet an official
> position of the NCDNHC.   Since this document has being discussed
> already, I don't think it is needed more time for more discussion.
> 
> My opinion is that the NCDNHC might formalize the things we produce
> here, in order to strengthen our positions as NCDNHC before the Names
> Council and ICANN Board.
> 
> Best Regards
> Vany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> As an additional comment, Vany's message
>> below indicates a lack of understanding of the
>> process of developing a DNSO position.
>> It may be helpful to re-state that process and
>> explain where we are in that process now.
>> 
>> The initial NCDNHC statement (linked below)
>> was developed in June in response to a very
>> short deadline given to the Names Council and
>> the DNSO constituencies by the Board resolution
>> passed in Stockholm.
>> 
>> That resolution asked the constituencies to
>> formulate positions and give them to the NC
>> by the July NC meeting. So we did not have
>> time for a formal online vote. We operated
>> by consensus. 
>> 
>> Once those initial constituency positions were
>> developed, they were used by the members
>> of the Names Council Task Force on ORG
>> divestiture to develop a consensus position
>> for the Names Council (NC) as a whole.
>> 
>> What we are reviewing NOW is the Names
>> Council ORG Task Force report. That report
>> is very similar to the position we initially
>> adopted. We as a constituency should be
>> very proud of that - we have taken the
>> leadership and defined the position.
>> 
>> This is why I have trouble understanding
>> Vany's position. It sounds like she wants
>> to throw out all the work that has been
>> done so far and start all over again.
>> I don't think there is any support for
>> that, and I don't think it is wise to even
>> consider it.
>> 
>> At this point, what matters
>> most is not the "NCDNHC position," but
>> the position of the NC Task Force, the
>> Names Council, and the ICANN Board.
>> Your comments at this point can only influence
>> the Task Force to modify the policy, or
>> convince the Names Council to pass or
>> not pass the policy.
>> 
>> If we want to be effective as a constituency,
>> we have to show that we can develop
>> responsible policy positions in a timely
>> manner, work with other constituencies,
>> and stick to our positions consistently.
>> 
>>>>> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany at sdnp.org.pa>
>> 10/24/01 10:03PM >>>
>> Milton:
>> 
>> On Mon, 22 October 2001, "Milton Mueller" wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Vany:
>>> We have already been through two rounds of
>>> the .org divestiture process
>>> 
>>> NCDNHC has produced a document submitted
>>> to the Names Council several months ago.
>>> This document answered your Questions 1
>>> and 4 and there is little point in going over
>>> it again.
>> Milton, as far as I know, such document you sent to
>> the NC
>> still can have modifications, additions, deletions,
>> refinments, etc.
>> Meaning that still is not complete, meaning that a
>> official position
>> haven't taken
>> be taken yet by the NCDNHC by a proper votation
>> process.
>> 
>> The link below will refresh your memory.
>> 
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00519.html
>> 
>> 
>> So please, don't say that such document is an
>> official position of the
>> NCDNHC because it is not,
>> and the membership of NCDNHC hasn't have the chance
>> to vote properly on
>> them.
>> 
>>> Then, the Names Council Task Force achieved
>>> a consensus among the seven constituencies
>>> and the GA. This consensus document, which
>>> also answers Questions 1, 4 and 5, is now
>>> put out for public comment.
>> of course I will make my comments in the public
>> forum
>> 
>>> The purpose now is not to start the policy
>>> making process all over again, but the
>>> comment on the specific proposal before us.
>> The purpose of my proposal is not start anything
>> again.  The purpose of
>> this is that
>> by once, the NCDNHC sends a complete document as
>> position by a proper
>> votation process
>> on every paragraph.  WHile votation doesn't occures,
>> no one can say that
>> such and such are
>> positions of the NCDNHC.
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> Vany
>> 
>>> 
>>>>>> vany_martinez at yahoo.com 10/21/01 01:41PM >>>
>>> Dear fellows:
>>> 
>>> It seems the opinions are divided in relation with
>>> ..ORG divesture issue.
>>> 
>>> I propose to elaborate several "YES-NO" questions
>> and
>>> vote on every one of them.
>>> 
>>> Examples of the questions could be:
>>> 
>>> 1.  Should .ORG be restricted to Non-Commercial
>>> registrants?  
>>> 
>>> 2.  Should part of .ORG earnings/incomes be
>> directed
>>> to fund NCDNHC activities?
>>> 
>>> 3.  Should part of .ORG earnings/incomes be
>> directed
>>> to help to fight the digital divide?
>>> 
>>> 4.  Should .ORG be run a by a Non-Profit and/or
>>> associatoins of Non-Profits organizations?
>>> 
>>> 5.  Should .ORG be run by a new brand membership
>>> non-commercial organizatin that can group all
>>> non-commercial organizations interested in belong
>> to
>>> such a group?
>>> 
>>> 6.  Should the new REgistry of .ORG run itself
>>> technically the operations of .ORG?
>>> 
>>> 7.  Should the new Registry of .ORG  subcontract
>> an
>>> organization to perfom technical operations of
>> .ORG?
>>> 
>>> 8.  If subcontratation for technical operation of
>> .ORG
>>> occurs, such an organization should be Commercial
>> or
>>> Non-Commercial?
>>> 
>>> I am sure there are many many questions...The
>> purpose
>>> of this proposal is to facilitate the input that
>> the
>>> NCDNHC can give to the community regarding .ORG
>>> divesture.
>>> 
>>> What all of you think?
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>> Vany         
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- Chris Bailey <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org> wrote:
>>>> At 12:01 17/10/2001 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:55:26 -0400
>>>>> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
>>>>> To: <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org>,
>>>> <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG
>>>> Divestiture
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chris Bailey <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org>
>> 10/16/01
>>>> 08:17AM >>>
>>>>> Surely, we are talking potentially about tens
>> of
>>>> millions of dollars a year
>>>>> here? Travel subsidy for non-commercial
>> interests
>>>> would be just one very
>>>>> tiny aspect of what could be done with this
>> kind of
>>>> money. Certainly, I
>>>>> would think Digital Divide issues would be a
>> major
>>>> item we would want to
>>>>> use it for, but not the only one. Why not "to
>>>> support non-commercial
>>>>> Internet interests"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> MM ====>
>>>>> Anyone who thinks of ORG as a gigantic pot of
>> money
>>>>> that can be used to solve the world's problems
>>>> needs
>>>>> to think twice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here is a simple scenario to think about:
>>>>> 
>>>>> There will be an application period for taking
>> over
>>>>> ORG.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Applicant A promises to operate ORG
>>>>> efficiently, use surpluses to improve service
>> and
>>>>> reduce prices.
>>>> 
>>>> Where would the unique ORG non-commercial
>> character
>>>> be in that? I thought,
>>>> since it was agreed not to make ORG restricted
>> that
>>>> its character would be
>>>> achieved through marketing a specifically
>>>> non-commercial image. It is
>>>> difficult to see how just promising good service
>> and
>>>> price reductions does
>>>> that.
>>>> 
>>>> Also "service" can mean different things to
>>>> different people. To give an
>>>> example, just this week, I have been involved
>> with a
>>>> case where a major
>>>> international women's organisation has had its
>>>> domain name handed over to a
>>>> porn site, because they were late in paying
>> their
>>>> renewal fee. You should
>>>> hear what they have to say about the "service"
>> of
>>>> the Registrar, though the
>>>> porn site probably thinks they are doing a great
>>>> job. Commercially they
>>>> probably are.
>>>> 
>>>> ORG should be run by an SO that relates to and
>>>> emphasises with the
>>>> non-commercial sector. Like the other sponsored
>>>> TLDs, it should produce a
>>>> "Registrar Agreement" designed to ensure that
>> ORG
>>>> Registrars also do and
>>>> that they comply with plans to develop ORG as a
>>>> uniquely non-commercial
>>>> namespace.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Applicant B says nothing about
>>>>> how it is going to run a large-scale, complex
>>>>> business but promises to throw millions of
>>>>> dollars at global programs to end world hunger
>>>>> and put a computer on every desk top in every
>>>>> home in the world, even where there are no
>> desks
>>>>> and no electric power to plug them in to.
>>>> 
>>>> Why is B saying nothing about running " a
>>>> large-scale, complex business"
>>>> and why make such a caricature of B making
>> proposals
>>>> for using income for
>>>> important non-commercial use. You seem to be
>> setting
>>>> up a straw man here.
>>>> 
>>>> Let's bring in applicant C, who does give a
>> detailed
>>>> plan of how to run a
>>>> large-scale, complex business (you seem to
>> assume
>>>> non-commercial entities
>>>> are incapable of this), but also produces plans
>> for
>>>> giving ORG a unique
>>>> non-commercial identity by allocating profits to
>>>> important non-commercial
>>>> Internet issues such as the digital divide.
>>>> 
>>>> Surely giving ORG such a unique non-commercial
>>>> identity is the whole point
>>>> of it being given over by Verisign. What's the
>> point
>>>> otherwise?
>>>> 
>>>>> Which of these proposals do you think is going
>>>>> to win the support of the ENTIRE Internet
>>>>> community, including current ORG registrants?
>>>> 
>>>> I think C's proposal's, given strong backing
>> from
>>>> the NCDNHC could win very
>>>> wide support indeed from within the
>> non-commercial
>>>> Internet community.
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> As for the registrar issues, again please be
>> aware
>>>> of
>>>>> real, serious political constraints. What do
>> you
>>>> think
>>>>> current registrars are going to think about
>> efforts
>>>>> to cut them out of org and establish new,
>>>> "nonprofit"
>>>>> registrars that compete with them in a
>> declining
>>>> market?
>>>> 
>>>> They will scream blue murder. All the more
>> reason
>>>> why we should prepare for
>>>> a tough battle here. Verisign is giving away ORG
>> as
>>>> a sop to the 
>>>> non-commercial sector, while everyone knows the
>>>> really big profits lie
>>>> elsewhere. But now the commercial sector is
>> going to
>>>> argue they want to
>>>> continue to take the profits from ORG as well.
>> Why
>>>> shouldn't the 
>>>> non-commercial sector be entitled to channel the
>>>> profits from the
>>>> relatively small space it has been given into
>>>> non-commercial Internet
>>>> interests and issues?
>>>> 
>>>> Chris Bailey
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I encourage you all to file comments on this
>> issue,
>>>>> but please put more serious thought into the
>> whole
>>>>> situation, don't just fantasize about what you
>>>> would
>>>>> do with a few million dollars.
>> -- 
>> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
>> Information Technology Specialist
>> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
>> Tel: (507) 317-0169
>> http://www.sdnp.org.pa >
>> e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>>