Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

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

On 19:54 14/05/02, James Love said:
>I support also the Schneiders approach,which seems straightforward.  Will 
>there an opportunity now to debate the merits of the two 
>resolutions/motions (are they resolutions or motions?) ? It might be 
>useful to see a comparison of the two approaches, side by side.  Jamie

I agree with Marcs approach. We have eventually settled the obvious: that 
we have two motions to vote. Will we now discuss one strategy.

IMHO none of the motion is perfect and both are acceptable (I will vote both).

The point is what after them.
1. Jamies motion calls on the DoC for the future.
2. Alex's motion calls on the BoD for the future.

IMHO the future will belong to us, as the Internet Participants and as the 
DNSO GA. No one is really interested into the Internet that the ICANN has 
unbuilt. There is a growing consensus among Govs from what I gather - 
question: is the US Gov included? - that what we need is stability of the 
Internet and no more instability within the ICANN. And that this might 
result from:
- three international rotational chair concertation infrastruture 
committees on each of the SO subjects where the ITU/T will be one of the 
members of each. With no lawyer involved.
- an internet structure oriented "campus" where all the mission creep will 
be able to creep as much as they want, to develop relations and cross 
fertilization as they need it. ITU/T could host it, other could too. With 
as many lawyers as you want, but from every countries.

Question is
- how to show the BoD that we want them to advance towards that solution.
- how to show the DoC we distrust the BoD until they shown what they did
- how to make very very clear that if the BoD does to go ahead in splitting 
the ICANN as per above, and very shortly, we already call on EVERY Gov - 
not only the USG against that mess; and not to support it.

Now in the case of the USG, we also need their "rebid" (please reread Karls 
mail, it is more complex) to help the ICANN in repelling some of the 
wording, may be in reviewing the cooperative agreement so VRSN may make the 
best of it. We need the USG to review Plan B. We also have to accept that 
the Internet was/is/will be made of several namespaces. And that the switch 
of the private Jon Postel network into an open system was not easy because 
of the growth. So it means a few things to be corrected in Legacy land : 
all of them are not with the ICANN.

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