Re: [ga] Karl's latest

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Andy,
thank you for your input. We certainly share your concern and understand 
your reasons. Explaining your reasons is a good way to correct the 
"unanimity" image which is now gone. I would thank Amadeu to speak up too 
when he thinks appropriate. And all the others, so we clearly know where we 
stand. BoD squatters are also welcome to speak.

In this endeavor each of us has a role and a position. As a Board Member 
your vote and your explanation as a "protect the possibility and wait and 
see" is OK. Up to us now to behave ourselves in order not to endanger your 
contingency plan. But yours is most probably a contingency plan, as I do 
not see the ICANN surviving a long to its current behavior and tricks.

As Europeans we cannot accept the 2 SOs seats, the unique non mirrored, non 
backed-up, non lived tested system of root servers and the unique, 
non-backed-up, non live-tested USG controlled only root single master file, 
nor the NTIA only root system logger archives and analysis, nor the non-UN 
control over international e-embargo. A system in operations 18 years ago. 
I suppose that what is true for Europeans is also true for China, Japan, 
Russia, Africa, Pacific, South America... As French, and as European, we 
cannot accept that e-merchandism (selling what belongs to everyone) comes 
first before e-human rights. We cannot accept that, in a world where the 
electronic environment has taken so much importance to the point that the 
new exclusion is the digital divide, people may be excluded because they 
are not granted their e-presence. A domain name is not a commodity for some 
to sell, it must be a free and permanent right for everyone. To day a 
"real" only being is not filly real.

The true issues the ICANN faces are not the WLS, the politeness of Mr. 
Sims, the sunrise period of .biz or the billions SAIC made in selling 
Verisign stock. The true issues the ICANN was to address and most probably 
failed were to transform the small legacy ARPANET closed system into the 
world open network able to accommodate 6.000.000.000 of users and 
600.000.000.000 of devices in reasonable delays, costs, stability, security 
and peace, without a tremendous negative impact on telecommunications and 
from then on the world's economy. If failed the first Internet shock of the 
e-economy, let have it not produce a second Internet shock.

At this stage, I thank you for holding with reason the fort and trying to 
make it with the "New ICANN", but I think that what they shown us in 
Bucharest is that now, only the ITU can manage the problem. They also 
introduced the GAC in a decision position and this is in my opinion a real 
mistake. The Internet is a value added network, it must be addressed in 
continuity with the other communication and value added networks. Splitting 
its management from other Telecommunication issues would sterilize them 
both, create non necessary conflicts, endanger the fragile Telecom Mamoth 
of which the Internet has become a large and unique customer and an 
integrated partner.

On another hand introducing the Internet into the current ITU would be a 
comparable mistake as the ITU is oriented towards "owned networks" while 
the Internet is owned by no one. So it is up to us to make the ITU-I 
develop with possibly - should ICANN current vision change - having the 
"-I" for ICANN. But an ICANN serving as a secretariat for the users and 
stakeholder consensus. I only hope these few people can adapt their culture 
tothe challenge: never so much depended on so few ... even during the 
Battle of England.

Only a concerted management where everyone retains his authority in his 
business, in his country, in his system can work in a distributed open 
environment. Even cooperation does not work, as ccTLDs show it with no real 
national innovation and development. So coordination under the USG will NOT 
work. No one owns the Internet, not the Govs, not the ICANN, not the ccTLD 
managers, because the Internet only exists because we - the participants - 
plug into each others system the way we want. And first, the way we can 
afford it.

Coordinating the Internet is like trying coordinating Radio, TV, walkie 
talkies, Wi-Fi, speech ... We all know that the target is ultimately to 
control everything down to our brains to sell us e-learning, e-buying, 
e-medicine, etc... and that 2 years ago 60% of the traffic of the web went 
to 110 sites and now to 14. That may be big dream for some marketing 
planners, but thye have to get real: this is wasted money, time and 
efforts. Another Babel will just not work better than the others. People 
are not that fool.

That is (let finish with some humor) ... unless 10 out of that 14 sites are 
Europeans and 6 are French.. :-), just to balance the 13 root servers, of 
which 10 are in the USA and 6 on the East Cost.

jfc


On 11:32 09/07/02, Andy Mueller-Maguhn said:

>Gentleman,
>(and women)
>
>allow me a short comment on this thread.
>
>Indeed (and also what Dany pointed out) it would make me more happy
>if Joe Sims as legal consultant for ICANN would see himself and behave
>a little more neutral.
>
>This whole discussions raises the "wag-the-dog" question in an obvious
>sad way: is it the ICANN board making decissions based on consultation
>with the community and then asking staff + legal consultant to work it out
>or is it the legal consultant fighting with the community and even a member
>of the board and then consulting the ICANN board what to do?!
>
>I do not assume that Mr. Sims is "smoking some weird shit" because as a
>matter of fact, human beeings inhaling marihuana are normaly much more
>peaceful as what at least my impression from this posting is. If this would
>have to do with the abuse of drugs, I would guess some other substance
>associated with creating paranoia to be (ab)used here [1].
>
>But I do not mind about private such matters  here and I also do not mind
>if Joe Sims is allowed to practise law in california, but I do  mind if he has
>and keeps the necessary neutrality to be in the position he is for ICANN and
>the board.
>
>This is what I dislike about the situation.
>
>So, back to the issues.
>
>Some of you might have wondered, why the resolution 02.75 - 02.80 [2]
>was adopted unanimously. The reason was mentioned here already, but the
>dimension of it is a little more bizzare.
>
>As elected director from the european users, and if you want, call it
>"at-large" elected, I of course worry about *how* the user representation
>and participation of users will take place in the ICANN of the future. And
>of course I want to have the attention of the board, especially the members
>of the ERC to *really* think about mechanism, so that the policy-making
>at the end *is* a balance of interests among all segments of the Internet
>community.
>
>Before adopting the resolution, I was able to change some phrases in there
>with the help of other directors, main point was next to the setting of
>the nomcom (originally this was ICANN community, changed to internet
>community) the point:
>
>*   devise and incorporate specific measures to ensure, to the extent 
>feasible,
>    geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of ICANN structure
>
>All parts of ICANN structure means all parts, including staff, legal advise,
>technical structure (including root servers).
>
>Obviously, this does not solve the problem of public represenation and
>participation within ICANN and the board. And it still raises the question,
>how and with what amount of will this will be practised.
>
>So there is a long list of open questions, *how* this all will be realised,
>because the precise and direct affecting decisions (by-law changes etc)
>will be made in the next weeks/months and there is good reasons to keep
>the energy for paying attention to these next steps.
>
>To come to the point: By all respects to the work of some ICANN critics,
>especially to the US based, I simply cannot follow the idea, that bringing
>the US government into the game (through DOC, through legislation,
>through talking to US Senate members who might be more willing to listen
>than some ICANN board members and staff people are) can improve the
>accountability, transparency and/or user represenation/participation
>situation at ICANN.
>
>I simply do not know a single example in the past, where by involvement
>of the united states government in global issues, anything improved.
>Especially not for the reasons mentioned. Especially not as a european
>citizen.
>
>Also, I do not think, that anybody can use "the government as a tool"
>because governments have their own interests next to the sometimes
>existing tiny little bit of reputation some of them might have, through
>claiming to work on behalf of the citizens (which is of course different
>for the different governments of the different countries and their
>different understandings and procedures to do so).
>
>The meeting in Bucharest already took place under specific and more
>or less extreme statements as well from governmental representatives
>as from people involed with the ITU. If you look at the current international
>situation outside ICANN, it is hard to guess in what kind  of issues
>a strong governmental involvemend would bring us in what we can
>see now as the "ICANN policy area" and what might it might end up to be.
>
>Exactly this is at least my reason for voting in favour of the
>blueprint as at least a less-worse solution then strong governmental
>involvement would be.
>
>I hope that this improves your understanding a little bit of what is
>going on here. Sorry for not beeing able to follow all threads here.
>
>
>Andy Mueller-Maguhn
>
>
>
>[1] see http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml
>
>[2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/02