RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 18:21 03/12/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>If one were going to try and make an impact, I think that this is exactly
>the wrong approach. Withdrawing activity only let's the opponent work
>unmolested and out of oversight. They can later claim that we never
>participated and the withdrawal was tacit agreement to whatever actions are
>being taken.

I think I disagree, but this is a reasonable alternative. Let consider it 
seriously.
Please remember that the disagreement is over the way we participate (TF 
formula), so continuing to participate is accepting what we disagree.

>Danny, the past few weeks have made me disappointed in many things. The
>prime focus of the GA should be to bring itself forward. What you are doing
>here is pounding on the blockhouse door, with your head. Everyone knows that
>blockhouses only respond to cannons. You're only giving yourself a headache.

There is another image. You are blocked at the door, so you go out through 
the windows where they do not expect you. The claim is that only the NC is 
representative because it is elected and from hen only NC TF are 
representative if not polluted by non representative GA Members. My 
suggestion is to get a vote. Idealy the best would be to elect a council of 
delegates (not to have it designated as Danny tried).

I suppose that "votes", "delegates" words may ring a bell in the spheres 
you want to approach and in the media?

>Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
>DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.

This is your US approach. I think it should paralleled in Europe, Japan, 
Australia, etc... the kind of no network management cooked by the NC is 
worth the entire world to be share in the fun: the network of the networks 
management afraid of the network culture and resolving into closed tea cup 
parties.

france@large has already introduced a petition to the European Council. 
This kind of things takes time, but I am sure that if the text also went to 
the Japanese Diet, to the Congress, to different Parliaments round the 
world, to the UN this could have an impact.

>At each step, relevent issues need to be surfaced, for that step, and as
>that step's non-responsiveness is documented, issues are prepared for the
>next step.

IMHO let forget the DoC level as too near from us and too complex for the 
public. Our focus - and we might have competence and outreach - should be 
e-human rights, mani pulite, financial, lingual and digital divide, equal 
rights for all? This words have a meaning for the world as well as for us.

>One of the current problems are that the last two steps are
>somewhat preoccupied with the current shooting-war. Therefore, issues have
>to be refined that are relevent to the context of the current focus of those
>steps.

The real concern of magnitude that surfaces from the ICP-4 Security and 
Network Stability at the present stage is the software threat and 
essentially immediately "dons" - denials of name services. The only 
response to that is to take a defensive lead on the distributed protected 
user architecture we need anyway urgently for our development, before 
destabilization occurs on a real scale (I am very seriously concerned by 
Somalia). Pleading for that is in direct line with the MdR meeting. It 
certainly can attract the attention of Governements.

Deploying the East Coast 6 servers elesewhere is complex and worrying. 
Giving people hope in explaining them why they will not need the root 
system anymore is simple, calming and the best way to defuse the threat of 
an agressive usage of the concept.

>Various moptions, pleas, and other arguments have been presented to both the
>DNSO/NC and the ICANN/BoD. Thus far, there has been minimal response and
>even that has been in the wrong direction. It is time to prepare arguments
>with the US Department of Commerce, whilst at the same time, trying to get a
>Congress-critter involved.

Roeland, don't you think that the BoD and the NC are not just obeying the 
DoC desires? I may obviously be wrong, but don't you think that Joe Sims, 
Mike Roberts, Louis Touton ... have not enough the experience of these 
people not to have built the ICANN as precisely a compromise between DoC's 
expectations and what they consider as realistic and we know oudated?

I am afraid that the only way you can make things moving is in getting 
real. Anyone having shared in the ICANN dream or nightmaere is too much 
committed to it to see the absurdity of all this. Yourself you want to quit 
and now you want to document, bargain, explain....

Forget about it. Don't go to people you want to convince. Go to people you 
will never convince that such a thing as absurd as the ICANN may actually 
exist. There you will get some result.

Look at Eric. A few times ago he was still defending the rights of the 
Vitenamese kids. Wantingto change the GA because of them. Now he wants to 
get them on the GA. You will never convince the DoC, but you will only risk 
to convince yourself you became someone important because you discuss with 
them.

Again, I repeat my suggestion is that under the duress we start voting 
seriously abody of positions. This will made us to understand what we will 
vote about - there are enough competences in here - and build serious 
doctrines over governance and naming management. It is up to us to create 
an image of the GA in the press, in the foreign Govs, in the community. The 
ICANN is of no real interest: what is of interest is the forum it gives us.

Roberto had united us. Danny has pushed things. But obviously he has not 
pushed us. Not his trick. OK, he has other talents. Now we have to chose a 
new Chair. Let try finding someone able to make us debate and consolidate. 
With the GA as an agenda.

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