Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications)

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

Dear Vittorio,
I will not tell in a name oriented organization the weight of the words.

First, it happens that centuries, vocabulary and grammar have given a 
meaning to words and concepts.  If you want to speak about "States", do not 
use "nations".

But mainly I am afraid you did not understand the point. The point is the 
cleverness of the move which is to make a pro-ICANN concept to be 
introduced and supported by useful opponents. I know it is standard 
procedure (and you known it), I acknowledge when it is well done.

Now, to come back to your won document. What will be remembered from it 
will be:
- you are part of the system as the ALAC Chair (ICANN entrusted you there)
- you use confusing "national digital sovereignty" words (whatever you 
mean) which serve well the interests of the ICANN controlling minority and 
disserves @large, ccTLDs and ITU
- you label yourself as an opponent, or at least as a reviser (cf. your 
text: I agree with some parts, cf. your reaction here). This way you give 
the feeling there is some kind of consensus.

IMHO you have two options. Either you truly believe in the "nation 
sovereignty" and you should be able to oppose me a construed doctrine, or 
to explain why I am wrong (what I certainly may be). Or they do not 
represent exactly what you mean, and all this will help you next time.

You know that I encouraged you to stay in the ICANN process. I am happy you 
did it (even if deeply dismayed by some of your ways). ICANN is many 
people: you are one of them now. Karl is going to go, you will be by your 
own and will replace him as the main @large rep. I have nothing 
against  cooperation with ICANN, but I wish not to compromise with those 
who do not serve its best interest. FIY I defined that best interest ad the 
global common interest of every - large or small - user.

jfc







At 10:05 10/03/03, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 11:38:24 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >The current ICANN drift (cf. Vittorio's use in ITU document) towards
> >"national digital sovereignty" is extremely clever. Let compare:
> >
> >- State digital sovereignty. (...)
> >
> >- national digital sovereignty. This is a confuse concept (except when
> >speaking of the USA at large as a sovereign nation over the other nations -
> >one has to be a sovereign over something).
>
>Are you sure you actually read my paper? By "national digital
>sovereignty" I was meaning the exact opposite of what you have just
>said, and there's no way you could misunderstand this by reading the
>paper. Also, please point out where ICANN has supported my statement,
>before calling it an "ICANN drift". In fact, my paper had a good and
>explicit amount of criticism for ICANN too.
>--
>vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
>-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
>--
>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: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03