Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 18:10 25/08/01, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales said:
>Hi Leah, Jefsey and Joana:

Hi: Vany,

>I really would like to see DNSO funded by other means instead from
>constituencies.
>
>All constituencies funds DNSO activities including GA activities.  I would
>like that unability to pay doesn't be an obstacle for the constiuencies to
>vote through NC members. In fact ths is not democracy.  Even in my
>coutnry, people with debts have the right to vote.

In ICANN country people with debts lose their [domain] name.

>But comming back again to the candiates for Board Directors.

I wish to remind you that I started discussing the ICANN money
management. The candidacies are just an example. But let go.

>Extrapolating it to our politic system, political parties, independent
>candidates, etc, are not funded by the government.  All political prties
>and even the independent candiates (by the way, in my country you cannot
>be an independent candidate, in other it is permissible) begins from the
>next day of elections to prepare themselves for the next election 5 years
>later, by means of fundraising amongst members, activities, alliances,
>etc.

If France this system led - as in other countries - to such abuses that
several Ministries, political leaders and mayors went in jail. As well as
top corportation managers. You may recall Alcatel, Elf. ... And believe
me the practices were not worst than in the US. This means that the
system Bill and you propose would lead me directly to jail.

You may also remember the $ 50.000 for the TLDs. I have covered the
question with two top legal firm. Should I have paid them - you have to
find the money - I was possibly investigated and sen to jail.

The rationale is simple. Someone gives you some money. OK. What is
his interest. If his interest is legitimate has has no problem is publishing
it. If it is not this is bribery. Period.

>However, GA is not a political party, NC is not a political party, ICANN
>Board members are not political parties.  We are a whole DNSO and not only
>the NC has the duty to search solutions.  All members of DNSO has the duty
>to work on solutions, including every member of the GA.

True. The first thing is to accept there is a problem.
Then to decide we want to solve it.

Then we can work on it: analysis, debate, propositions, etc...
A way to test Bill and Joana's BP

>I am not agree with the philosophy of "pay to play".  However, the
>conditions was like this since ICANN creation.  It is not now that we are
>facing the same problem.

This is not because we always did something wrong ....

<snip>
>I propose that instead of following discussing how unfair or not is the
>system right now...begin to discuss all posible solutions...

Let consider that everyone accepts the ICANN economy is to be
reviewed (what I doubt, many staill have to be convinced, the "pay
to give" being part of their culture), you cannot unfortunately jump
at quick solutions.

What you want to review is the ICANN business plan. This includes
necessarily its mission, its organization, its products, its management.

So you must start with basics:
- is this a corporation with its own survival and development goals
- is this a common interest endeavor with the community goals.

Then:
- either what is its market
- or who are its community members

etc...

I have no objection to any of the approach. I only object that you
cannot have *both* as today.

Jefsey

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html