Re: [ga] Jefsey Morfin's opinion about Danny's icann, at large

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Danny,
you have been with the International field long enough I suppose to 
understand the negative consequence of wasting other's time and attention 
with details about out of picture propositions.

On 17:23 02/05/02, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
>Vittorio,
>You have been in the ICANN environment long enough to understand the 
>negative consequences of recommendations that are formulated at too high a 
>level of generality.  As the saying goes... the devil is in the details.

So, let start by the root of the issue. The first question to address is 
simple.
"Is an ICANN type of organization of interest?"

This is not a judgment on the ICANN but a question to the DoC. This is not 
because Ira Magaziner and Joe Sims have devised the idea, that many people 
have contributed to it - mostly fighting it - and eventually that the ICANN 
took shape that if the concept is wrong it will become true.

So we first have to check. If the response is "yes", we may proceed 
further. If the response is no we will proceed from the reasons for that "no".

To help the discussion.

1. please let try to find what the ICANN has brought to the Internet community.
2. whas is positive or negative
3. let determine if it was due to its specific existance
4. let examine if it could not have been done better by the same people (so 
we are not biased) under another form of organization.

5. The ALSC has proposed a way to reshape positively the ICANN. They were 
no fool and ISOC supportive, yet they were turned down. Lynn has strange 
ideas, but he is no fool. He has been given the job to make it work, and 
Lynn told the ICANN was a failure. Both proposed such changes -specailly 
Lynn - that we may understand that the failure was built-in.

OK. The articles, bylaws, MoU come from a dialog between many people and 
the DoC. Were so many people wrong or were the DoC premises wrong? Here is 
the question and the need for a rebid. The rebid is not about which bider 
is to be selected, it is first about the RFP wording.

6. The task at hand is simple. We have to move from a 550.000.000 
occasional e-mail and web users 30 years old first generation system, to a 
5.000.000.000 users and 50.000.000.000 devices permanently connected modern 
network system; to support automation, private virtual computer system, 
protected databanks, huge file transfers for telemedecine, e-mail, 
authentification, e-netware, telephone, community relations, dialpads, 
banking transfers, web access, X.25 connections, TV services, governement, 
public and private amdinistration, mobile control, securty and alarms, 
heart disease control, accounting distributed systems, telemetry, weather 
services, radio, flight control, etc. etc. within the 20 coming years.

I understand Govs', I understand ITU/T's, I understand consumer 
organization's, I understand @large's, I understand ccTLDs', I understand 
my own Intlnet project's, I understand New.net's, I understand Open Roots', 
I understand WIPO's, I understand French Academy's and Library of 
Congress', I understand Minc's and Ainc's and EEC's and USG's, I understand 
MS's and Verisign's roles. I still miss where the ICANN should fit, and to 
some extent where the IAB and the IETF want to fit.

I suppose that when I have understood it, I will be much, much at ease to 
understand and tell what the ICANN should be, how shoud it be structured, 
how would its parts interrelate, how it could grow and how it could migrate 
form its current form to the new proposed one.
jfc
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02