Re: [ga] NC BS
Dear Philip, thank you for this mail which may permit a step ahead for all of us. Actually what we see is that the constituencies are organizing themselves out of the control of the ICANN, what is good and should have been the rule as they are not to control but to help the ICANN management. I only recently discovered that most of the problem comes from the lack of an English word to describe the most common and demanded way of addressing today's problems in France : "concertation" which is understood in English with exactly the opposition meaning. It means that independent people may talk together, mutually inform each other and then decide independently in what they see as their and the common interest. This is certainly not coordination (where authority is delegated) and not cooperation (where authority is shared) : authority here is fully retained by each participants, but attention is paid to the others. Collegiality might be another image which would fit a constituency, but it is not so open and general. Would someone have a word for that? This is obviously the "authoritative" problem of the ICANN. As another one is "gouvernance" in Americain understood as the ways of a Govenement and in French as the ways of a "home keeper", when the Intenet needs a "net keeper". So the solution to the Internet problem is the French "gouvernance par la concertation" and the Internet problem is the "authoritative governance". Would "concerted gouvernance" be an acceptable compromise? On 15:57 21/05/02, Philip Sheppard said: Joop, There are two things to consider. What past positions have been taken and what future positions could be taken. Even if I would be in agreement with past positions - hmmm - this does not mean that I can trust the BC to defend my own positions in the future. Mission/values of the BC True. This is the general concern. And this has not been reached. The risk of an SIS (second Internet shock) would be bad for the Internet industry and a nigtmare for Telcos. I hoped that the Telcos being the BC Leaders; we could get reasonable positions from then, but they favor status-quo as a protection, not seeing that we need much more. - ICANN policy positions derive from broad stakeholder participation in a common forum for suppliers and users. IMHO This is a wrong view derived from a BC Telcos vision. The Telcos provide the bandwidth and will use it is some special ways. In this they are suppliers. But the Internet is first a "social network" with a "social content" which means that the content and the interest of the network is generated by the society, not by any supplier of medium (actually the Telcos may help and block the development, as the ICANN does). The true suppliers are the users. You use the Internet to read this mail, because I wrote it. This is much more complex than a supplier/user relation. Is this mission NOT shared by individuals who run businesses ? Yes and not. Not when Telcos business is involved and the BC is actually the Telcos Constituency (what is not necessarily bad). Yes when real business is involved, but there are so few of them in the BC: I need to see Ford, American Airways, Sears, Accord, Vivendi. As long as you want the BC to be a lobbying platform for Telcos ... When the three NC Reps are one for Telcos, one for Large Corps and one for SME, may be we will have the internal understanding to discuss and propose real business oriented propositions. Positions of the BC (edits from some published papers) No. They support sTLDs. Not as a granted expansion. But as a normal right of the life. The BC seeks a way : "to meet the global desire for more names and reduce the potential for consumer fraud and confusion as a result of bad faith use of trademarks"... "Verify that applications for domain names do not infringe the rights of holders of intellectual property, trade marks or brand names of existing entities, whether commercial, non-commercial or individual." Do individuals want bad faith use of the names they use to trade ? People and Gov want their own laws to apply. Only the US ACPA has created a problem resolved by the US/JDRP solution. There are many other ways to understand what a DN is, starting with what it is technically: an alphanumeric pointer to a network reality. Exactly the same as "Philip Sheppard" is a useful alphanumeric pointer to your person. Did someone question the right of your parents to chose the "Philip" SLD in the "Sheppard" TLD? Will you sell it to me? Have you to reniew it? Yes as a MS Passport user. The BC supports the UDRP and an efficient WhoIs? Are these uniquely the concern of big business ? Whois is a source of privacy violation and national commercial information law violations. Each country has its own rules. Rules established 20 years ago to manage an University Network and to make sure the computer system may resist the yearly shift of teachers and students is not necessarily the best way to address the worlds needs. But it has become a business control opportunity for some. 2. Dot org The main point is that .org should not benefit to ICANN in helping an artificial survival to everyone's detriment. It is also that who ever manage it, gets the $M 5 and the $M X+ from the up-to-10-years pre-renewals collected by VRSN. There is today absolutely no specialization in .org and it works well. The only thing we want is that we are not proposed to pay $ 2.000 to protect our name in .org and not to use it as for .coop. Are we so divergent here ? Never seen a position of the BC saying that it demands 50% of the Director seats for the @large. This is a simple constitutional stability and competence diversification need. If there is divergence, lets identify it, and rationalise it. I just quickly shown that much much more is involved. But talking of bad/good faith, what about the WLS fun vs US/JDRP accepted together in the same contract? The key point is that there are many interests in the world. All of them must be treated equal as they all share in the global system. BC cannot represent Registrants, which cannot represent Individuals, which cannot represent SMEs, etc.. only Joe Sims thought we are on single thing in our life and we are made according to his own shchem. In the name of the Joe, of the Sims and of the JDRP, amen. The same people must be able to defend their interest as BC, NCDNHC, IP, Registrant, SME, ISP, etc.. if they happen to be concerned. The same for IP addresses and Protocol parameters. jfc --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02 |