<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Thomas' challenge to transparency
Dear all,
Thomas rises an interesting issue: would I in ICANN stand for
"inquisition". To such a mail there are many ways to respond. I will take
the challenge that Thomas is honest and not aggressive. We will see from
his response. If he/we cooperate I will pursue on an issue I do consider as
societal and of major interest. If he does not I will drop it as another
"ICANNerie".
On 22:10 01/07/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>Thus, my question still stands (and please answer it in public): What
>kind of substance do france@large and germany@large have? Approximate
>number of members? Accomplishments in the past?
>
>Some transparency, please. Right now, it looks more and more (to me) like
>the organizations you are talking about are slightly more sophisticated
>versions of INEGroup.
(NB. about transparency, I copied the GA the mail I sent to Thmaos -
actually I intended it to be sent to all and I did not see that the ReplyTo
was only to you. Nothing hidden.).
The main issue here is a lack of common work and understanding about what
is what I call an "Internet Association" to try to render that new form of
human organization that the nets permit to develop.
Joe Sims in the case of the ICANN tried to construe it as a "no member"
corporation (Thomas question is "how many members"). The ISOC tried to
build it as a wide structure with local Chapters and now with free members
to get some numbers. The Eurolinc projects it as a cooperation of national
Chapters. Joop, Vittorio and Esther try to set it up as a large (yet small)
monolith BC tries to set-it up as a pyramidal representation lobbying
system. Thomas and Alex try to federate it under their dedicated
chairmanship, Joop tried to link it to a Charter at the IDNO. Joana, Danny
and I tried to link it to a procedure as a result of the WG-Review. Eric
tries to relate it to a personal conceptual figure "the dotcommer". Jeff is
historically only second to Joe with his INEG. There are several others
around who tried to figure out the best way to address it, in particular
many ccTLDs. And Thomas with his "does-not-exist" stuff, which is another
(not that stupid) way. I understand it and try to build it as a multiple
small local kernel non committing support structure.
Yet the real Blueprint problem comes from a common understanding and
agreement on that kind of technico/legal structure we could commonly adopt,
understand and share.
Up to now, the criteria we observed was that such organizations either
spent most of their efforts (ICANN, GA, IDNO, ICANNATLARGE.COM) in self
structuring; either in acting without a proper structure (most of the
others), either in being lead by an individual supported by a consensus or
as a group of nearly connected (often local) individuals (usually
activists, ie students, relaxed employees or univesitaris, unemployed ) .
Now, Thomas tries to be critic (in the good sense I hope) in measuring it
through its achievements. I am not sure it is a good way because the value
and the weight of the achievements will be highly subjective. In the case
of he ICANN I am sure it is not a good way because it is political first.
But the question is worth a real attention. And I think it is a real DNSO
matter because names are the uniting element on the Internet: domain names,
mailing lists, ccTLDs relations, @large etc. And the ICANN is one of them.
The question is: which structure, organization, behavior, legal status,
evaluation, etc.. for that kind of collective interest on the Internet some
name Association, Center, Constituency, Internet Association, no member
corporation, consortium, society, club etc... which "unites" people who
never met, discuss, develop things/ideas/actions in common etc
If this is of interest to some in here I am ready to discuss it. Otherwise
I will drop it.
jfc
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|