RE: [ga] According to Mike Roberts....

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 20:41 27/10/01, Mike Roberts said:
>At 17:50 +0200 10/27/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>Mike what you have to understand is there is not such a thing as having 
>>to agree upon the future of the Internet. This is a very pious dream of 
>>yours. This is exactly as if you wanted people to agree upon the future 
>>of the radio or of the high-ways.
>
>Jefsey, that is specifically what I did NOT say.  The number ONE problem 
>of too many people on the GA and ALSC lists is trying to import their 
>agendas into ICANN's mission. Look at the string of NOTS in the middle of 
>my post.
>
>If the White Paper is ICANN's Consitution, then I am an ICANN 
>Constitutionalist...  All of this other stuff, as Carl says, is "rubbish."

I am not sure I understand all these NOTs which seem to contradict unless 
they are partly derisive.

I am lost at understanding you: what you say seems to be 200% of what I 
say. I will not call you extremist because I think you will agree that 
things are or are not. I will not call you mad because your "be prepared to 
compromise" is here and obviously you are ready to dialog. I will not call 
you warmonger however I do not see any Jon Postel's army except what I call 
the AmerICANN, a view of the ICANN I resent as an European but no to the 
point to fight it with tanks. I certainly will call you a patriot, but I do 
fail understanding your own idea the one you would like it the "people who 
count" to get from you.

I fully agree that the WhitePaper and the MoU are the ICANN temporary 
Constitution. Temporary because they want to conduct the transition from an 
USG IANA to its privatization. I am obviously more interested in the next 
ICANN constitution and I find that WhitePaper is a good prepative work. I 
also think that the initial ICANN bylaws are good enough and some changes 
well made. I also think that the BoD 9+9+1 direct/indirect/staff 
distribution is a constitutional key of the network stability.

However I think that ICANN is of interest only if it is a common IANA 
secretariat managed by 3 people [for one to take some vacations, one to be 
the boss] under the supervision of a competent Board plus whatever 
catalysis to the benefit of the Global Internet Community its unique 
position and the competence of its Board may permit (as long as this is 
governance sharing and no attempt to dominance). Why do I think that? 
Because the Internet is a distributed system supported by a governance, not 
a centrally managed network operation, nor a authoritatively governed 
hierarchy. Not even a meshed network, and certainly not a star network. 
Just a consensus of interconnects. So we have not to think in term of 
decisions, not even in term of coordination, but in term of suggestions 
with the hope to uncover a consensus (not to forge it, least to impose 
it!). I just observe that this is the way our world works; and that 
Internet is both a mirror and an agent of that world. I observe that any 
attempt to fight that reality is promised to failure: on the nets as well 
as in policy, in economy, in education, in research, in religion, etc... 
When I say that ICANN has to become real I mean it has to accept that 
situation of the society, of the technics, of the thinking, of the economy, 
of the efficiency... I am no integrist, dreamer, modernist or terrorist, 
just an innovation  and reality driven conservative.

What I do not understand is that you have built the ICANN the way it is. 
You have hired Louis Touton, you have decided the contract policy, you have 
prepared the letter to the Govs, you have invented the ALSC, you have paid 
Joe Sims for the no-member non-profit Californian corporation and so many 
unnecessary things, you have started the TLD strategy and created the 
alternative (sic) root problem, you have created the Registrars and killed 
them through Plan B, you have fought the stability, the safety and the 
security of the Internet. No me. If NSI is threatening the Network by its 
size, it your policy, not mine. If ICANN is rigid, outdated, inadequate and 
full of the personal agenda  you complain about this is your doing through 
the structures, bylaws, bypasses, lack of transparency, personal schemes, 
etc. that you at least cooperated to.

How can you reconcile what you write today and what you did? And if you 
tried to protect us against worst which could have happened, tell us!  With 
the money you spent over the wild plans of yours, we could have subsidized 
a lot of the small R&D we needed to make the net safe, stable and innovative.

I disagree with most of what you participated into and yet I discover now 
and often that on many points you go far beyond me. I am sorry for my low 
IQ but I do not understand it.

Now, if you are ORSC-007 I am sorry to have blown-up your cover.
Cheers.
Jefsey


--
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