Joop Teernstra wrote:
I see you choose to maintain the myth of the webmaster billing the panel. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.What do you mean "the cost of the work."? The NCC has never paid anyone to maintain its web site, which has been done by volunteers. I am not opposed to considering paying a webmaster, if and when we have resources to do so, if that is the best place to spend the money, but I don't see how we can have someone running up liabilities without some agreement as to what work is authorized at what price.
All I am doing is maintain a transparent view of the cost of the work, of the pledges made and of the donations received.
Who were those 3 members that were to be trusted (by informal consensus, not by vote) with the keys? When was I informed of this?As I indicated earlier and posted links to the panel discussions, it was the Chair (VB), Vice-Chair (Izumi) and SS. I don't know what your communication has been with VB on this. I had tried to stay out of the web page issue, although obviously recently I have taken a bigger interest.
Huh? It still says "register here." Register for what? You have to read the page to the end to even see that this is the how you join the organization. The word "join" would be easier to understand than "register", IMO.Even small stuff wasn't being fixed, like making it more clear that "register here" meant... sign up to become a member... or something more clear.
That was done within 12 hours after it was asked. Sheesh!
VB was wrong :Why was he wrong? He was asking for this a long time ago. If you were refusing to do something simple like share the passwords, but expecting the panel to go out and get you $1,000, maybe you should think about how your actions were being percieved. Not sharing the passwords was considered a pretty hostile act, if not paranoid. Ok, Esther picked you to run the site. Fine. But that wasn't a permanent position. Now the panel's temporary mandate is about over, with the new election over next week. But this was a problem before we got to Bucharest.
1. telling you that he had to invoice InternetNZ - that was not the case.
2. using his power as panel chair to hold up the payment in order to demand control over the keys of the website at a point in time that his mandate was expiring.
Joop, it will be up to the elected panel to decide how to handle this. Not you and not me. There is a large field of candidates, and IMO, a pretty good set of choices for panel members. This is a process issue. I wasn't that concerned over who the panel selected, but at some point if you want to promote the idea of democratic processes, you have to let the election process mean something. In this case, it meant having the elected panel make some decisions about the web site, which should be a fairly routine and unsurprising thing. Just because you have access to the membership list doesn't mean you have the right to start sending out messages to the membership, even if you are personally convinced that it would be a good thing.9. Mby only real concern is that Joop may want to use his access to the membership list to spam the membership... something I have strong feelings about, and something also I think could drive people away from the organization, if not report us to anti-spam groups. I would be pleased if Joop would agree not only to spam members now, but after he is replaced, to destroy his records of the membership lists, unless he is chosen by the new panel as one of the trusted parties to hold this information. I might add this is seems like a very simple and fair request.
I am glad that you bring out your *real* concern.
It is a side-benefit of my innocent mailout to throw this issue of trust into sharp relief. Abuse of this list at election time was my concern as well.
This issue will need to be worked out whoever is in possession of the keys. What will you do if you go through a succession of webmasters? How can you ever ensure that the list will *not* be abused?
You support distribution of the keys to people who do not understand their obligations as elected Panel members, and yet you single out the initiator of the website effort as the person who cannot be trusted with them.
Who else are you asking to destroy their copies of the members' list? Mr Katoh? Andy MM? Karl? Bret? Vittorio? Thomas? Elisabeth? > It is an insulting request.Well, if they start sending out unauthorized messages to the members, I would raise the complaint with them.
Yes, you have my undertaking that I will never use the members' list for "spam".Or more specifically, to mail the membership directly without authorization to do so. Of course you have the same rights was the rest of the public to post to the discuss list and the forums, or to use other ICANN related lists, like the GA or NCC lists, to reach a broader audience (as many of us do).
Whoever is elected will have to deal with this issue, and lots more. And, there will be another election within a year. If you can't trust the people you elect to run icannatlarge.com, why should icann trust anyone who is elected? As long as you have regular elections, it should be possible to build a democratic institution that works and is accountable. Of course, the panel could screw things up. (That's part of the democractic process too).
I understand that you, when elected, will ask your colleagues on the new Panel to endorse a list of "people who can be trusted with membership data". Great idea. :)
Do you also propose that the debate on this will be archived and public? Can the subjects defend themselves against false representations?The first panel set up a public archived list for decision making.... which wasn't even linked to the web page for a long time, and until very recently was hard to find. The discuss list and the web page forums are of course open to anyone.
Will there be an open vote?