Question 1

forest@ncup.org

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


1 - when a strategic communications plan, developed based on responses to the
BCIS membership study, is approved by the membership

2 - when over 70% of members surveyed indicate agreement with the statement:
  "I feel informed and/or involved"  or  "my perspective is valued"



_____________________________________
James JF Forest, Ph.D.  
Research and Technology Coordinator
National Center for Urban Partnerships

http://www.ncup.org
Tel: (718) 289-5164   Fax: (718) 289-6015 

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

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 

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 

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