[ga] Re: [GA] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

[jefsey <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 17:50 09/05/02, Kist McKee said:
>James,
>Your ideas seem very idealized to me.
>Why would a country who is famous for stuffing the government with 
>un-elected officials suddenly stop and start playing along with the 
>consensus game they made up to keep us busy?
>There is no money in that.  There is no infamy.
>If the "problem" is with ICANN, isn't it really with the ICANNers and 
>ICANNites?  Could we not solve our perceived difficulties simply by 
>replacing all of the people currently involved?
>:)

Dear Kist,
I am afraid this is idealization too. Let review it:
- TR says you are idealistic because involved interests will not fade away 
and dont pay attention to people
- you say James idealizes the USG democratic angelism.
- I say you idealize the world in thinking that a wrong structures may be 
saved by better people.
- you may say I idealize in believing that getting real will make good 
people understand they were wrong about structures.

Let assume we would be the BoD. Lynn reports: "I cannot make it".
1. we ask Lynn what does he do. They did it and he reported.
2. first, we can tell that he does too much as Karl said. I would even say 
they do far too much.
3. two, we can ask ourselves if what we do, we do it in the proper way. 
That question is not risen
4. three, we can ask ourselves, if what we do is necessary according to the 
charter
5. four, we can question the charter in two ways
     - in documenting our real problem - ie rewriting Lynn's document, now 
we know better
     - in asking for an external reevaluation (the rebid).

TR asks for alternatives to be proposed before hand. IMHO we do not want 
alternatives. We want a stop: most of the objectives of the ICANN are 
killed by the ICANN over doing it. It is not a question of political faith, 
it is technical. The contract system kills competition. Competition is 
fostered by the iana.exe system because no one can trick before hand. 
Because a good idea cannot be killed by establishment.

The only two problems I see with James motion are:
- that it should be sent to the BoD first, explaining that we need them to 
get a documented review of what the ICANN does. That if this document is 
not provided by the DoC a rebid is the best way. That if we do not obtain 
it, we will ask for it directly.
- TR's attitude. TR is no fool. He is our man relating with the NC. He is a 
pragmatic person. His analysis is a total loss of faith, to the absurd. 
This means that not only the BoD will not respond to our request, but most 
probably the DoC will not either. I cannot believe TR is now a defender of 
an outdated establishment: he is only realistically pessimistic.

So the motion text must include what Jamie put in it, but be phrased in a 
way everyone understand that we were obliged to vote it, in the best common 
interest - to save the DNS - what is dramatically true.

VRSN has indicated that they will put M$ 200 into the DNS development, MS 
will ally with them. MS has 1.5 billion ready to cash in if needed. There 
is no money problem, there is only an ownership problem. The question is 
simple: will the nets be MS, will the enhanced web be under MS planned non 
compatible super-directory system? Will the Whois be - under Jail penalty - 
the basis for the International Identity Card? Will the world's automated 
devices from bulbs to peacemaker, from videogames to TV be MS compatible, 
which means only MS compatible (any trademark permitted as long as it 
spells Microsoft). This is the reality. I think that there are Congressmen, 
all over the planet to dislike that prospect.

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