Re: [ifwp] Specific Suggestion on IANA/NSI Draft

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Harold and all,

  First let me say for our organization INEG. INC. that most of the points that
Harold makes here as possible amendments we agree with in principal.
(Those that we do not  agree with are indicated below his proposed amendments).

Harold Feld wrote:

> This is floated for myself, not for DNRC.
>
> 1) Article IV Section 1(c) of the Articles should be amended to eliminate
> the phrase "unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause."
>
> Reason: It is at best redundant, since if substantial and reasonable cause
> exists the party shall not be "singled out".  At worst, it justifies
> precisely the disparate treatment it was meant to prevent.
>
> 1a)  The following sentence should be added to the above referenced
> article: "A right of action shall exist under this section identical to
> that granted under (e) of this section."
>
> Reason: I see no reason why acts of individual discrimination should be
> treated less severely than acts that do economic damage.
>
> 2) Article V Section 5 Additional Qualifications
> The following language should be added: "Representatives of national
> governments and of intergovernmental bodies may, upon request, attend
> meetings of the board of directors as observers.  As observers, they shall
> be entitled to participate in discussion, although they shall have no right
> to vote."
>
> Reason: Like it or not, governments do have an interest in this.
> Furthermore, governments potentially provide additional protection to
> interests not otherwise represented.  This strikes me as a good compromise
> between government participation (not desired) and government involvement
> (desired).
>
> 3) Article V Section 6, International Representation
> This should be amended to treat Canada and the United States as separate
> regions.
>
> Reason: The interests of Canada and the United States are *not* identical.
> These two countries have the greatest number of Internet users, yet they
> will have the least representation through being forced to share as one
> region.
>
> 4) Article V Section 14 Regular Meetings
> The following language should be included:  "There is a strong presumption
> that regular meetings of the Board of Directors will be open to the public.
>  Therefore, unless the Board by majority vote declares the meeting close,
> members of the public will permitted to attend these meetings.  The Board
> may require that those wishing to attend notify the Board in advance.
> A meeting may be called as a closed meeting, in which case the Board must
> reaffirm that the meeting will be closed by majority vote at least 72 hours
> before the meeting.  Voting shall take place by telephone or email, as
> described elsewhere in these bylaws.

  We would add the following amendment to this section:All meetings should be
open to the public and all stakeholders/members should have equal
representation in conjunction to the SO's and the board.  Any resolutions
determined
as a result of these meetings should be made available for a vote by the
Stakeholders
and/or members, which include each and every Internet user irrespective or their

standing as a member of the internet community before that resolution or
amendment
is adopted.

> No individual or organization shall be barred from an open meeting,
> although the Board may establish necessary rules to insure that business
> proceeds in an orderly fashion."
>
> Reason: This will secure openess.  Although the Annual meeting will be
> open, it has the potential to be a mere dog and pony show.  Openness means
> seeing the backroom operations.  These rules strike a ablance between
> letting the Board operate efficiently and preserving openess and
> transparency of process.
> The last clause is extremely important.  The Board must not be permitted to
> exclude "inconvenient" groups, or be permitted to allow picked favorites to
> attend while excluding the public.
>
> This same language should apply to Section 16, "Special meetings."
>
> Regarding Supporting organizations, the following points need
> clarification:
>
> a) Can the SO reject an application that satisfies all objective criteria
> for membership.
>
> b) Does the Board approve applications for membership to an SO
>
> In addition, the following specific language should be included somewhere:
> "An SO may not exclude an organization based on economic criteria.  If the
> SO requires a membership fee, and the applicant meets all other objective
> criteria for membership, than, upon a proper showing of need, the SO shall
> waive the membership fee and any other dues, fees or payments that would
> prevent the applicant from joining the SO."
>
> Reason: This language is necessary to prevent lockout.  For example, most
> of the public interest groups could not afford the $10,000 to join CORE.
> What stops a Names Council consisting of wealthy trade organizations and
> large corporations from excluding smaller entities by requiring an up-front
> $50,000 payment to join?

  It is for this reason that there is a need for individual membership and that
theindividual member has an equal standing with any SO as far as voting rights.

>
>
> Harold Feld
> For myself, not DNRC
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 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