RE: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Hi!
I think you are right Roeland, too much start being too much. I am going to 
incorporate the IBA Internet Business Association. Will do it as a French 
association as it quick and cheap.

The articles will be fairly standard and provide the shell, the bank 
account and paypal.
The charter will be in English and French.

I do not want to disclose it too soon and gather trusted people first and 
be in a position to claim an earlier date. I intend to propose Membership 
to a very selected panel of business manager/owners. Then to approach 
consumer organizations and Chambers of Commerce to get some recognition.

The target is to focus on people making their business mainly with the 
Internet and to see which strategy we can develop together to organize a 
business environment rather that a dogmatic and talkative fight for no-power.

Please let me know if you are interested in being founding Members and to 
suggest other FM. We could have Founders until the end of he year. Founding 
Members would be life free.

The board would be of 21. I would take a permanent seat to make sure there 
is a continuity and because I will assume secretariat. Initial members of 
he BoD will be coopt.  Let me know if you are interested. I will see if I 
can find a very simple way to set-up a charter including national chapters.

Once numerous enough it can enter into an MoU with the ICANN to interface 
it as an SME oriented constituency.

I will try to think about a business plan. We could organize seminar on the 
Internet to fellows business owners and the money would in part go to the 
IBA. I suppose that in Europe we can start something along those lines 
quick enough.

Jefsey.


At 22:17 19/10/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>Hello Bret,
>
>How many times or how long, do we have to continue trying something that is
>patently not working. At some time, one has to admit to reality.After two
>years of trying to fix this, we have still have the status quo. The
>confidence behind an internal repair has long sice eroded and partial
>repairs are often worse than no repairs.
>
>It is time to either fix it or junk it. I kindly refer you to the WG-Review
>archives. The general feeling there was that no one knows how to define a
>constituency. To a large extant, the requirements for a constituency are
>market-driven and the ICANN doesn't even know how to do that, let alone have
>the mechanisms in place. Yes at that time, MHSC used that factiod to make
>the argument for abolishing constituencies altogether. MHSC still feels that
>way, but bows to the political reality that the extant constituencies will
>successfully resist organizational death. That same factoid has been also
>used to argue against creating more constituencies. Thus, freezing the
>current situation in amber ... forever, unless we do something different.
>Bicamerality routes around the impasse and eliminates the Single Point Of
>Failure (SPOF), that is the Names Council. The Names Council can continue to
>exclusively serve its constituent vested interests, as they do now, and the
>GA can continue to represent all domain name registrants, from all root
>zones, inclusively. I can't see any reason for one group to have any more
>"say" than the other.
>
>In US Federal terms, the analogy is that the NC is like the Senate and the
>GA is like the House of Representitives. All have a vested interest in DNS
>policies, simply by being registrants. Non-registrants are already supposed
>to be a part of the AtLarge (ALSO), at ICANN BoD level. Both Hamilton and
>Jefferson may prevail equally.
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:baf@fausett.com]
>|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:12 PM
>|> To: [ga]
>|> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion
>|>
>|>
>|> DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>|> > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what
>|> may be an emerging
>|> > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
>|>
>|> Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time,
>|> yesterday. It's
>|> inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and
>|> comment to
>|> pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view. For my part, I
>|> think we need
>|> great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that
>|> all persons and
>|> companies have a place within the constituency structure,
>|> ensuring that
>|> their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am
>|> not convinced
>|> that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the
>|> right answer.
>|>
>|> The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies
>|> as necessary to
>|> represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow
>|> the GA to serve
>|> the function for which it was designed: a place for
>|> cross-constituency
>|> dialogue and consensus building.
>|>
>|>       -- Bret
>|>
>|> --
>|> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>|> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>|>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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