Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 03:40 16/02/01, Sotiropoulos said:
>Actually, I was rather taken aback at the apparent
>ignorance of the American legislators who were
>chairing the Conress hearings.  In light of this,
>I think all heretofore efforts at Education and
>Outreach have definitely been seriously lacking
>and must be entirely reevaluated, and revamped.

Usually when you take on a new job, you start educating
people. I am amzed by the fact there is not an iCANN
brochure, 4 pages everyone could print handle around
to teach ... @large Members, Govs, admins, lawyers...

May be because some words should be defined there:
internet, DN, consensus, transparency...

> >I think the only country where iCANN really
> >     has a legal mission is Tuvalu since the iCANN protected ".tv" is part
> >     of the royal domain.
>
>This TLD represents a particularly interesting
>proposition.  On one hand, you have some
>governments asking WIPO to influence ICANN to
>sanction the repossession of "geographic
>indication" TLDs, on the other, you have nations
>selling/privatizing their ccTLDs to the highest
>bidder...

I suppose you will be asked to dotTV people to
apologize to the royal familly for calling them
and the people of Tuvaly "highest bidder".. They
are keen on that.

> >The French Internet law project does not even
> >     mention iCANN.
>
>I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me.  I
>think most nations are pretty much as skeptical of
>the goings-on at ICANN, just as many of their
>private citizens who take part in forums like this
>one are.

I wish there would be only "some" ("many" would
be a miracle) French people on these fora. Please
recal the europen diplomat's iCANN definition:
an American Joke. I wish this will not turn being
true...

> > -  I must confess I was deadly wrong in calling first for a DN definition.
>Now Jefsey, that's just the problem...  What do
>you want?  Anarchy?

???? The emphasis is on *first*. You cannot define
something which part of something else when you did
not first define that something else. Internet must be
first legally defined.

> >     Sotiris: I realize we have a bigger problem: we have no legal 
> definition
> >     of the Internet. This is a far more important subject: the Internet was
> >     first referred to as "the nets". That is a better name. The nets may be
> >     supported by several name resolution programs including the DNS,
> >     hosts.txt etc... "the nets" are not subject to most Internet related
> >     legislations. where are the boarders? What may define Internet vs. an
> >     externet, the nets... not the protocols, not the IP addresses, not
> >     the access providers, not the users, not the browsers, not the law...
>
>I personally feel that the US has done a
>marvellous job of fostering, indeed engendering,
>the Internet.  I believe we should work hard at
>keeping US involvement and interest in the ICANN
>high. However, I also believe America must come to
>terms with the reality that the Internet has
>become an international Public Domain... where
>people can meet, exchange, and relate without
>having to produce passports!!!

If you look at the "net fathers", you will see that
that "engedering" has been as much French, English,
Italian, Japanese as amercian in regards with the number
of connected people. And that in the US the job has
been mostly carried outside of the ARPANet community.
It is true that Gore and Berner-Lee are as much important
as Jack McDonnell, Louis Pouzin, Paolo Popescu, Jon
Postel, Robert Trehin and many others.

You know to interconnect countries you must be three:
country A, country B and a go-between/catalyst. I can
testify of that. And this is why I think Mike Roberts'
approach with the GAC is inept, and he knows people
knows he knows it (Hi! Mike if you read this or if Kent
copy you)

 > Personally speaking, I don't think it would be
>prudent to allow the net to disintegrate into
>another "zone of inluence" politic.

Unfortunately this is what Mike is attempting. To
protect iCANN from desintegation. In so doing he
accelerates the processus.

The proposition seems to be interesting: as Joop
says, Kent is testing it. But it cannot stand. People,
industry, etc... uses the Internet by consensus (as
people used Latin, then French and now English
for international relations...) The Internet is just a
consensus for very few things.


> >     Only consensus... and they want to vote and legislate consensus?
>
>I think if we're going to consider the benefit of
>the of the Internet Community as a whole, we're
>going to have to have a real effort made to
>determine what that may be.  I, too, find the
>undefined "consensus" quite stupefying, in
>fact....  Mais, Jefsey, ma pauvre, we must forever
>be running round in circles you and I, it
>seems...  Unless, of course, we realize we don't
>have any tails to catch.

Considering the interest of the Internet
community as a whole is a netwide concern
belonging to the DNSO and to a consensus
objectable by qualified veto.

Considering the interests of the stakeholders
is an @large concern subject to majority
vote of all the involved parties.

Confusing both within the DNSO as testified by
Joe Sims - supposedly on behalf of "democracy" -
is a trick to block the @large and use the TM
holders. (Ever asked yourself why the TM are
so important apart from being Joe Sims' forte?
the handling of the thread on the TM is the best
legitimacy argument to make iCANN survive
against the law. When I think that there are
people talking about TM lobby. :-)  !!! )

The survival instinct is as good in non-profit
no-member CA coprorations as any where else!

>Enlivened education and outreach, along with
>clear, cogent descriptions and definitions of
>processes, services, and product, for a global
>market... nothing less will do.  If ICANN fails,
>what will make the son-of-ICANN any more
>legitimate?

Fun the way the words may sond different
from one place to another.... Tail in French,
root in Aussie, son-of-iCANN in Internet...

But you are deadly right. We cannot aford
losing iCANN. There are only four solutions:

- either they start a son-of-iCANN and there
   will be a new one - less and less credible -
   to adress every new crisis.
- or they rely on the GAC and the UN and
   people will move around
- or they leave IBM/ATT/SAIC rule the show.
   But thses people do not want to rule it: they
   want to benefit from it. And this will be the
   end of the Internet: back to the nets: AOL
   vs MS, vs WorldCom, etc...
- or we reform the iCANN. As you cannot
   reform such a thing, you rebuild it from
   within. There are three weak parts:

   - DNSO: the role of this WG-Review is to
     review, it should be changed to Rebuild.

   - the @large. Let see what happens and let
     cooperate

   - the Statutrory Members. The only reasonable
    solution IMHO is the ccTLDs to become the
    ICANN statutory Members as national NICs. This
    is easy: they just have to incorporate an
    "International Cooperative Agency for Names and
    Numbers", adaptating the iCANN bylaws. The risk
    is that ICANN  (with an upper I for international)
    may interest more the GAC than the current iCANN
    team...

Jefsey

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html