Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Short report on the NC meeting Oct 19

[Giampaolo Bonora <bnrb08k1@bo.nettuno.it>]

Jefsey,
	procedures are important, sure. And the new Directors will
take the office at the end of ICANN session. But I can't imagine an
organisation taking fundamental decisions just before is changing 1/4
of his Board, while the Chairman is going, knowing that some new
Directors and a lot of people around disagree with the present state.

I'm not amused with big politics, but let me quote your recent post to
Alf,  to explain myself:

>>> [AMM]
>> > thanx for your understanding,
>>
>>I understand. But we are in disagreement about ICANN's role.
>
>Agreed.
>You stick to the by-laws and White Paper. And I presume you are right.

I don't think so. The by-laws changes frequently, as we know. About
WP, the starting task of ICANN was to accomplish 'the transition', and
they tried to do so.
USG has still the last word, as we know. So, the coming next US
Administration could make a new policy statement, or (more likely)
consider that the system envisaged in the White Paper should sustain
itself and don't need any other policy statement from USG.
The last would be the best way to stick the WP's process, but it
requires now a lot of innovation.
Note that in this case the USG will limit itself to defend US
interest, eventually to negotiate with peers.

To return in our backyard, ICANN can't stay anymore in his present
state. Do you know another corporation, profit or not-for-profit, with
a number of Directors two times the number of employees?

What I could expect from Los Angeles meetings (see also
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000>) is an
agreement to consider the At Large study as an ICANN's reform study,
where the  At Large as we are working on, has a substantial voice.

Best regards,
	giampaolo