RCS Mailing List Commentary

Opening Question

Ronda Hauben

>From wseltzer@linux.opencode.org  Wed Jan  6 10:56:14 1999

>Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
>Center's study of representation in cyberspace.  We will be using your
>answers here as the seeds of broader discussions.  For our opening
>question, we ask you:


First before we start, there is a problem in that you have framed
the question in a way to preclude getting an answer that can help
to solve the problem that is the genuine problem to be solved.

The first way that the Berkman Center has mistakenly framed the 
question is to call the study, a "study of representation in
cyberspace". Why do you feel you can determine that we shuld be
discussing "representation in cyberspace?" First the wonderful achievement
of the Internet is that people can represent themselves, that
people can speak for their own views and interests. And that
people can work together to make an inclusive process that is
cooperative rather than someone usurping our rights to be heard.

To call the study "representation" you preclude the discussion of 
the nature of the Internet.

And by talking about "cyberspace" instead of the "Internet"
you are not trying to figure out what the Internet makes
possible that is so important for the present and future
of making more participatory and cooperative processes possible,
but rather you are proposing that we talk aobut fictious entities,
rather than the real technological and human-computer-communication
system that the Internet is in actuality.


>By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
>judged?

This question is also framed in a way that precludes the identification
fo the real problem facing us on the Internet.

Many of those who are on the Internet have worked hard over a long
period of time to build a human-computer-communications system that
makes it possible for the voices of the users to be heard, for
the users themselves to determine the content and the architecture
of what is the present and future of the Internet.

ICANN is a move by the U.S. government to change that and to
narrow down the definition of what the Internet is to the wires and 
the routers, etc.

And then to protect the interests of a narrow set of commercial interests
to the great detriment of the majority of the users of the Internet.

Instead of the narrow definition, we need the broadest understanding
of the Internet. The Internet was actually created in response to
problem of the centralized structure of the original ARPANET
subnetwork which was an important development in its own right,
but didn't provide the necessary kind of open architecture that
was needed for a global network that would welcome all forms of 
packet switching networks to be part of it.

The creation of TCP (now called TCP/IP) in 1973 by Bob Kahn and Vint 
Cerf was based on the recognition that there was the need to provide
for the autonomy of the participating networks, and to have
a minimum set of agreed upon conventions, i.e. a protocol, that
would make it possible to communicate.

The goal was to remove constraints to communication among the diverse
networks that would internet.

Instead of the Berkman Center trying to clarify what are the diverse
internet networks and people and how to help there to be the communication
that will make it possible to identify problems about the administration
of the central points of control of the Internet so that these problems
won't lead to abuse of the diverse peoples and networks who make up the 
Internet, they are narrowing down the question in a way that
it is even difficult to determine what it is.

So if there is to be any success in the process that is proposed, it
must be judged by whether the narrow constraints get removed,
and if there can be open discussion to determine the real issues
that have to be identified, discussed, and means of resolving
these issues found.

The first issue I feel is crucial is to begin to recognize that
there is a noncommercial Internet and Internet community and 
that the communication make possible via the Internet is
dependent on the protection and support of this noncommercial
Internet and Internet commujnity.

And that the whole ICANN process thus far has been to deny that
there is an Internet that is *not* commercial and that promotes
community which is crucil.

The first step I see as necessary is to recognize and begin to
welcome the discussion and communication among the folks
who are part ofthe noncommercial Internet and to welcome
their participation in the questoin of how to protect the 
development of the communication the Internet makes possible,
and how to scale the Internet so this communication increases.

I am working on a paper that discusses this issue and am 
willing to contribute it into the process.

But also there should be one newsgroup with a mailing list,
not separate mailing lists on this issue.

Ronda

ronda@panix.com


                  Netizens: On the History and Impact
                    of Usenet and the Internet
                http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
                also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6

Attyross@aol.com

To me, the BCIS membership study will be judged a success if it listens to its
contributors, formulates clear recommendations to ICANN based upon the
contributions and its own independent analysis, and promptly reports back to
the contributors the reaction of ICANN to the recommendations.

Regards,

Otho B. Ross
Attorney at Law
(212) 370-5606
attyross@aol.com 


http://www.wld.com/lawyer/ross.otho 

fishkin@mail.utexas.edu

The BCIS study needs to outline a strategy for public consultation about
the affected interests that will satisfy the following criteria:
a) there should be some plausible specification of the "public" or affected
"publics" that need to consulted.
b) there should be a mechanism or mechanisms that will incorporate the
views of the relevant public in a way that is representative.
c) there should be a mechanism or mechanisms that will incorporate the
views of the relevant public in a way that is thoughtful or deliberative.
d) there should be appropriate safeguards against the consultation process
being captured by interests that could produce one or another form of sham
democracy, for example by simply packing self-selected representation with
employees or groups that have a vested interest of one sort or another. 

	As for a), while a great deal of attention has focused on the role of
supporting organizations to represent a part of a relevant public, the
broader public of internet users needs to be considered as at least one
relevant public.
	As for b) and c) I believe that Deliberative Polling, which we have
employed successfully in many face to face situations, may offer a possible
model for accomplishing b) and c). Random samples that are representative
of the relevant public deliberate, become informed about the relevant
competing arguments and come to a considered judgment. These samples are
statistically representative and they come to very different views than
those offered in conventional polls. An advisory role for Deliberative
Polling, or something very much like it, would allow the recommendations of
the broader public to be considered. I offer this as one example of a
possible approach.
	As for d) random sampling and transparency offer some protection against
manipulated or sham democracy. There are other possible strategies.  But
the general point needs to be kept in mind. The internet over time will
engage significant interests. And whatever mechanisms of public
consultation for internet democracy are arrived at, they must be genuine
forms of public consultation and not mechanisms that simply give an
appearance of it.

jorgensenj@who.ch

As invited by Wendy Seltzer in her e-mail of 6 January 1999, here are 
some ideas on criteria for how the success of the BCIS membership study 
could be judged:

General Criteria (fairly evident)
----------------

- The study met its technical, financial and any other objectives;
- The study seen a global teamwork, not just a U.S.-driven initiative;
- Relevant parties contributed effectively to the study;
- Consensus established among participants on the outcome;
- Recommendations accepted by ICANN and other parties;
- Implementation and impact living up to expectations.

Specific Criteria
-----------------

Among other special criteria, I would in particular like to emphasize 
the following:

The study and its outcome should seem to give 'developing entities' a 
particular opportunity to benefit from the capability and applications 
of the Internet in general and the role of ICANN and its membership in 
particular:

- Such entities include governments and institutions of developing 
countries;  small and medium-sized enterprises in any country;  
educational institutions on limited budgets;  and users still unfamiliar 
with the Internet (ranging from old-fashioned senior executives to 
village women with access to a microfinance scheme);

- Users of any background would have an opportunity to be represented by 
membership of ICANN, not just representatives of Internet-intensive 
organizations (ref. for example, the "Internet users issues" presented 
by IT Finance to the ICANN Board on 25 November 1998 in Brussels - now 
at http://www.itfinance.com/icann.htm and http://www.ispo.cec.be). 

Best regards,

Jens A. Jorgensen
jorgensenj@who.int
jaj@swissonline.ch

Robert_Erickson@mma.org

Question: By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study
be judged?

My Thoughts:  -  does it fulfill the mandate given to ICANN
                        -  is it a working document with provisions for
changes, etc. if future needs warrant it
                        -  what is the level of satisfaction with the
study among all interested groups.....will some
                                      group feel left out, abandoned, not
involved
                        -  does it have "legs" to be a usable,
wide-ranging study now and in the future
                        -  can the provisions in the study be applied
immediately  
                        -  is it as complete a study as can be made given
time/money/people constraints
                        -  is anyone or any group that should be
involved....involved......have they been invited....
                                       are they aware that this study is
going on
                        -  after implementing the guidelines in the study,
will, after the first year, a majority say that
                                       it is a success
                                           
                                                                           
              Bob Erickson
                                                                           
              robert_erickson@mma.org

bfitzger@scu.edu.au

By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
judged?

The study needs to be:

- pragmatic 
- coherent
- international
- inclusive
- politically responsive


Such a study needs to exude the same style of pragmaticism that has been
evident in way most of us  approach the internet. 

The study needs to be within reason while allowing a maximum degree of
persuasive creativity. If a radical outcome is required the study must show
clearly the transitional steps to be taken and the ability to make theses
steps e.g through technology.

The study will be a monumental failure unless it reaches out of the US to
the rest of the world. To this end the study needs to be built on global
consultation.

The study must strive to be inclusive without being ridiculous. It must
seek to engage with old, young foreign, educational, recreational,
commercial, "real space" "ignorant" forces to name a few. The degree of
success of the study will be relative to its ability to fathom the array of
interests integral to the process. The children are the future (if not the
now) so do not forget them. 

Guard against capture and diversify these visionaries of net future.

Finally the study needs to ensure its proposals respect 
political aspirations of good government and even start to reconceptualise
government.  Key themes of legitimacy, accountability, representation need
to be addresses. Some kind of diagram (e.g. matrix style) needs to be
developed to explain institutional design. Ultimately the great question
here will be why a private organisation should govern the net free of
state/government regulation? What role will states play
in this landscape - will they be powerless - do they need to be represented
- how long can they be kept out??
Here the study must engage the discourse of international lawyers and
international relations theorists. To fathom how this institutional design
works with international governance.

Cheers



Professor Brian Fitzgerald
BA LLB BCL (Oxon) LLM (Harv)
Dean of Law School 
Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia

PO Box 157
LISMORE  NSW  AUSTRALIA
Telephone 61  02  66 203 368
E-mail: bfitzger@scu.edu.au
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/lawj/cyberlaw

galvin@elistx.com

I would first like to observe that "success" to me implies a certain
amount of finality.  I do not consider the goals of your study final but
rather advisory.  Thus, as long as you provide advice, in the form of
several options from which to choose, you have been successful.

On the other hand, I believe that "advisory" success can be judged
according to the completeness of the research.  Of course, this is very
difficult for anyone who was not an integral part of the research
gathering process to determine.  A close approximation can be achieved
when the researcher includes a complete bibliography of sources, since
the recipient of the advice can then "consider the source."

More specifically I would say there are two possible success scenarios.
First, ideally, you will be able to review the membership structures of
a sizeable number of similar organizations, categorize them into a few
models, and then compare and contrast the models.  In this scenario,
similar should be represented by a well-defined set of characteristics,
perhaps a different set for each model, e.g., non-profit and
multi-national.

Second, I would consider it equally successful to discover there are no
similar organizations in existence today.  In this scenario I would
expect the advice to be based on an in-depth study of the top 2 or 3
organizations most closely resembling ICANN as we know it today.

Jim
--
James M. Galvin                       Principal
eList eXpress LLC                     +1 410.795.7978
http://www.elistx.com                 +1 410.549.5546 FAX
A premiere source for all your elist management services.

All the world's a stage and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.
                -- Sean O'Casey


Subject: [rcs] Opening Question
Sender: galvin@elistx.com
From: rcs@cyber.law.harvard.edu
To: galvin@elistx.com
Content-Type: multipart/Mixed; boundary="openmail-part-0c7ae05e-00000002"

Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
Center's study of representation in cyberspace.  We will be using your
answers here as the seeds of broader discussions.  For our opening
question, we ask you:

By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
judged?

Please send your answers to study@cyber.law.harvard.edu by Saturday,
January 9 (12 EST).  We ask you to meet this deadline so that we can
post
your answers and a digest to the website at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/ and send them to the ICANN
membership advisory committee's public list to spark discussion.

Thank you.
If you have questions, please email me directly.

--Wendy Seltzer
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
wseltzer@law.harvard.edu || wendy@seltzer.com

erony@marin.k12.ca.us (Ellen Rony)

>By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
>judged?

1.      Questions that are unambiguous and free of bias;
2.      Opportunity for public participation by both electronic submission
and physical attendance;
3.      Wide public dissemination of ways to participate in the study;
4.      Representative sampling (geographic and professional) of the
target
community;
5.      Broad range of understanding and expertise among the volunteer
respondents;
6.      Full spectrum identification and discussion of the meta issues and
their satellite concerns;
7.      Neutral, unbiased collection of study data;
8.      Absence of bias about the study's outcome on the part of the
organization undertaking the study;
9.      Thorough analysis of responses and proposed alternatives;
quantification of responses where appropriate.
10.     Objective and public reporting of study outcome;

As an academic exercise, the study must explore membership options and the
advantages and disadvantages of each.  The options must be discussed in
the
light of various scenarios of membership size, classification, voting
mechanisms, organizational structure, and funding.



Ellen Rony                                                     Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook                   http://www.domainhandbook.com
================================  // ===================================
ISBN 0879305150                *="  ____ /             +1 (415) 435-5010
erony@marin.k12.ca.us             \     )                    Tiburon, CA
                                   //  \\   "Carpe canine"

rogerc@us.ibm.com

The effort should be considered a success if it results in a proposal for
a
membership structure for ICANN that reflects the fact that while ICANN has
responsibilities to a very wide range of people from a very wide range of
locations, it also serves a vitally important operational role which
requires experience and expertise.

Internet Address: RogerC@US.IBM.COM
Program Director-Policy & Business Planning, IBM Internet Division

Subject: 
To: wendy@seltzer.com

whartung@boo.net

The basic premises under which we have constructed our society are the
rights and responsibilities of the individual.  When we gather to form
larger units, we continue to keep this as the basis for our management and
governance.

English law first established that a group of people could organize
themselves into a corporation but that they could only last for one year.
Their license could be renewed only if they could show that the public
benefited from their activities.  This was later changed, because of the
industrial revolution, to permit lifetime licenses.  Because there is no
longer a connection between the existence of a corporation and their
benefit to the public weal, I do not believe that corporations should be
counted as members of an organization such as ICANN - they are no longer
responsible members of society.

We can agree that an informed membership is essential to the function of
ICANN.  Then the logical conclusion is that membership should be all those
who are currently active on the internet.  This may have some technical
difficulties, but they can be solved.  It is appropriate that the
individual users be the members since the internet by its very nature is
decentralizing our entire culture -- Western, and eventually Eastern.

Respectfully submitted,

William Hartung

richard-bohn@email.msn.com

Let us all vote

Success of the BCIS study will be in each of us feeling that we are
'heard'.

I would suggest that the Internet is likened to a great mountain, a
mountain
that allows the energy streams of human communication to join into rivers
that eventually merge  and hence flow down into the common Ocean of
Humanity
ultimately uniting us all into one vast electrical field ; a energy field
tuned and harmonized by our individual capacity to dissolve our ego
boundries and unite as one body.

We don't lose our seperatness only expand our possibilities for creative
expansion. We are in effect co-creating life together without regard for
the
restrictive borders that have mythologized the dialectic of our aloneness.

In a very real sense I believe that the Isp's have the responsibility to
facilitate this union by offering each subscriber a daily e mail dispatch
which is designed to act as a poll.  Each subscriber should have the
opotion
of voting his heart on all questions which arise regarding ICANN
governence.
Each individual country should likewise formulate it's agenda so as to
solicite the advice of it's inhabitants by poll.  the results would be
available to all.
Leaders may or may not act according to polls, but it is a measure that
must
be encouraged.  We must all feel responsible for what is unfolding, for in
truth, ultimately, we are.   Thanks , Richard Bohn

karl@cavebear.com

> By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
> judged?

(I'm not sure that the question is well phrased -- I suspect that we are
more concerned with measuring the content of the final study report than
with the study itself.)

OK, on that assumption -- please pardon me if these thoughts are a bit
fuzzy, but I'm heading away for a weekend of much needed vacation and I'm
trying to quickly get some thoughts on "paper".

I've been thinking that there may be some kind of rough (very rough)
metrics that can be used to measure whether a membership structure is good
or not.

These metrics could include (all metrics are qualitative, not
quantitative):

- A measure of the ratio of those who can be *effective* members over
the total number of people and entities which are impacted by a decision
of ICANN or an SO.

- A measure of whether everyone who is a member can be an *effective*
participant.  (As a concrete example, a membership structure which allowed
lots of parties to be involved, but gives true power only to one class or
one particular member, would rate poorly on this scale.)

- A measure of whether the membership structure is flexible enough to
evolve as new interests or groupings of the impacted population arise.
This metric would take into account pre-categorizations of interest among
the members.  For example, a membership structure which had a rigid class
structure would rate poorly in this metric.

- A similar measure of whether the membership structure is flexible enough
to allow the smooth and easy formation of new groupings of members with
common interests as issues arise and evolve.

- A measure of the degree to which the membership structure causes (as a
side effect) certain groupings of members.  Membership classes are an
overt mechanism that groups members and could prevent the "natural"
formation of interest groups on issues.  (This metric may well be another
way of stating the previous metric.)

- A measure whether the membership could expand or contract sufficiently
quickly to accomodate spurts of interest in a particular issue.  (A
membership which had a high admission fee or one which only allowed
members to join at fixed dates or required a membership period before
allowing voting rights would rate poorly.)

- A measure of the pragmatic economic costs of *effective* member
participation -- For example, a structure that allowed electronic
participation would rate higher than one that required members to be
physically present at meetings held at locations around the world.

- As a variation of the previous: A measure whether there are potential
members who are discouraged to participate because their individual
interest is relatively small as compared to the cost of participation. (As
an example -- the average individual domain name holder has only a small
individual interest in rules regarding the interaction of trademarks and
domain names and hence, even if able to participate, won't.)  The purpose
of this metric is to evaluate the degree to which interest groups with a
small number of highly impacted members can can overpower unformed
interest groups composed of larger numbers of potental member who feel

only a small per-member impact [but a large cumulative impact.]

... Wow, after that last paragraph I can tell I'm getting too tired to be
clear.  So, rather than becoming even more murky, I'll sign off for the
evening (oops, morning.)

		--karl--

"Nicholas Sullivan"

The first goal of BCIS study should be to devise an electoral system that
allows for a changing membership to represent future users who cannot be
envisioned right now.

The second should be to devise a method of ongoing public discourse about
the nature and future of the Internet that is free and open to as wide a
range of participants as possible. Whether this method is deliberative
polling or a more free-ranging forum wherin preponderance of evidence can
be
measured is less important right now that the mere establishment of such
debate.

The third goal should be to devise a scheme whereby 7 user members can
somehow represent the interests of many more than 7 constituencies. Are
there elections? Different constituencies--such as all Spanish-speaking
people--will have to be grouped together and represented by one member,
who
will in time be replaced by a representative from another part of that
wide
constituency. The first step toward meeting this goal is to identify the
key
constituencies that must be represented.

Nick Sullivan

Richard.SWETENHAM@LUX.DG13.cec.be

> By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
> judged?

It can only be judged by results and by the reception it receives. 
The test is whether it provides an analysis of views and proposes
solutions which enable the different stakeholders and constituencies  
either to reach broad consensus on a constitutional membership structure,
or to conclude that such a structure is not possible or not desirable.

Richard Swetenham

M - A - L - I - K

>By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
>judged?

In my opinion, the success should be judged on the member/feedback ratio.
And the diversity amongst the members. If all members are within one field
or faculty (speaking hypothetically...)

Colin Gan

By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
judged ?

The success of the BCIS (Berkman Center for Internet & Society) membership
study should be judged on:

1) successful creations of various outlets e.g. mailing lists, electronic
bulletin boards where the community can voice their opinions legitimately
and fairly before new changes are made to existing IP addresses and Domain
Name Structures.

2) decentralising the control og ICANN from the U.S. Government but
instead set up a global organization similar to the United Nations, ASEAN,
APEC where different governments from different countries can have a say
in IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name
system management and root server system management.

3) integration of existing IPv4 with IPv6 as IP addresses are running out
soon through proper hardware and software architecture with the help of
global governments.

4) de-monopolization of entities controlling domain names e.g. Tuvalu's
Dream of Internet Millions from Domain Name ".TV" etc.  This would
encourage the re-use of domain names before certain categories of domain
name run dry.

The abovementioned served as my humble answer to the opening question.
Cheers.

--
Colin Gan                             Webworks Pte Ltd
colin@webworks.com.sg                 103A, Geylang Road
Research                              Singapore 389212

http://www.webworks.com.sg            Tel: (+65)  741-9526
Sales: sales@webworks.com.sg          Fax: (+65)  749-3806
Tech : tech@webworks.com.sg           Pgr:       9284-4823
Info : info@webworks.com.sg

BRPWIT@aol.com

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_915728758_boundary
Content-ID: <0_915728758@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Studies in and of themselves should not be judged as to success of
Results.

A successful study in this arena should have at least the following
characteristics:

1- responses from a broad spectrum of constiuents ie those affected by the
subject of the study.

2- a strong in-depth and analysis of each issue. Un-biased Pro- and COn
sides
of each element.

3- If possible a set of conclusions reached by Consensus.

4- As the internet affects 100s of millions of individual users - there
participation should not be negated because they are not part of the
"establishment" / "power structure" or "large money interests"

thank you
steve witkin

"David McKnight"

The study should be judged based on whether or not the objectives of
the study were met. Perhaps, that is the question that you should be
asking first. If you already have an answer to that, then provide that
information for comment.

DAVID McKNIGHT
-----------------------------
Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
Center's study of representation in cyberspace.  We will be using your
answers here as the seeds of broader discussions.  For our opening
question, we ask you:

By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
judged?

Please send your answers to study@cyber.law.harvard.edu by Saturday,
January 9 (12 EST).  We ask you to meet this deadline so that we can
post
your answers and a digest to the website at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/ and send them to the ICANN
membership advisory committee's public list to spark discussion.

Thank you.
If you have questions, please email me directly.

--Wendy Seltzer
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
wseltzer@law.harvard.edu || wendy@seltzer.com

"wolfgang.medienstadtt"

Criteria for the BCSI Membership Study

The study shoudl produce up to three alternative options 
* how to define membership with regard to the Internet community (What
is a member? membership to a TLD (cc or g), individual or institutional
membership, other categories of membership or so)
* how to define the rights and duties of members
* how to elect democratically a representation of the membership at
large (nominations, different stages of elections, voting power,
procedures etc.)
* how to define the madate, rights and duties and voting procedures for
elected bodies
* how to settle conflicts within the elected bodies and between the
elected bodies and groups of membership (quorum etc.) 

Thencriteria for the proposed options/solutions should be:
* simple and eays to understand
* transparent
* practicable 
* guaranteeing balance (geography, gender, functionality etc.)


Only some ideas in a hurry!

Hope to see some coolegues of the Center next Thursday


Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
Leuipzig/Aaarhus


	[]  

> -----Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von:	rcs@cyber.law.harvard.edu [SMTP:rcs@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
> Gesendet am:	Mittwoch, 6. Januar 1999 15:52
> An:	wolfgang.medienstadt@okay.net
> Betreff:	[rcs] Opening Question
> 
> Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
> Center's study of representation in cyberspace.  We will be using your
> answers here as the seeds of broader discussions.  For our opening
> question, we ask you:
> 
> By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
> judged?
> 
> Please send your answers to study@cyber.law.harvard.edu by Saturday,
> January 9 (12 EST).  We ask you to meet this deadline so that we can
> post
> your answers and a digest to the website at
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/ and send them to the ICANN
> membership advisory committee's public list to spark discussion.
> 
> Thank you.
> If you have questions, please email me directly.
> 
> --Wendy Seltzer
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
> wseltzer@law.harvard.edu || wendy@seltzer.com
> 
> 

Joop Teernstra

At 09:52 6/01/99 -0500, you asked:

>By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
>judged?
>
1. Accurate reflection of the opinions and idea's of the membership study
participants.
2. Full transparancy as to who the participants are and who they
represent.
3. Establishing public discussion with all MAC members.

4. Your membership study would be *very* succesful if it would actually be
instrumental in making ICANN a truly democratic bottom-up membership
organisation.


Joop Teernstra LL.M.  
Democratic Association of  Domain  Name  Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz 

Dennis Fazio

--On Wed, Jan 6, 1999 9:52 AM -0500 rcs@cyber.law.harvard.edu wrote:

> By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
> judged?

Any survey study is successful if the sample of participants is adequately
representative to give the data or responses validity and something useful
is learned from it.

--
Dennis Fazio, MRNet
GabNet:  612-362-5850

jeff Williams

Wendy and all,

rcs@cyber.law.harvard.edu wrote:

> Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
> Center's study of representation in cyberspace.  We will be using your
> answers here as the seeds of broader discussions.  For our opening
> question, we ask you:
>
> By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
> judged?

1.) Attention to the breadth of known participants by using andy and all
     E-Mail lists and other forms of communication available on the
     Internet.  This will require cross posting to as many relevant E-Mail
     lists as possible.
2.) Allowance for others to post questions such as this for all
participants
     to respond to.
3.) Ethical and positive participation of the administrator of this study.

>
>
> Please send your answers to study@cyber.law.harvard.edu by Saturday,
> January 9 (12 EST).  We ask you to meet this deadline so that we can
post
> your answers and a digest to the website at
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/ and send them to the ICANN
> membership advisory committee's public list to spark discussion.
>
> Thank you.
> If you have questions, please email me directly.
>
> --Wendy Seltzer
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
> wseltzer@law.harvard.edu || wendy@seltzer.com

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Michael Sondow

rcs@cyber.law.harvard.edu a icrit:
> 
> Welcome to an important discussion phase in the Berkman
> Center's study of representation in cyberspace.  We will be using your
> answers here as the seeds of broader discussions.  For our opening
> question, we ask you:
> 
> By what criteria should the success of the BCIS membership study be
> judged?

Answer: By whether or not it can arrive, in a timely period, with a
proposal
to ICANN for a method of admitting members to ICANN's at-large membership
in
a way fair to the entire Internet community. Since in order for such a
method to be fair it will necessarily have to permit a large and diverse
number of people, many of whom may have conflicting views on who should be
admitted, a democratic voting procedure will need to be devised for coming
to a decision about the membership selection method; therefore a mechanism
for online voting needs to be included in any proposal from BCIS to ICANN.