Re: [atlarge-discuss] The web page

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

On 02:47 22/10/02, Richard Henderson said:
> To be honest, the Icann show at Shanghai does not interest me greatly - 
> it's a bit like Saddam Hussein polling 100% of the votes this week in his 
> election - the outcomes are rigged in advance anyway - I think we do well 
> to haunt their party as the enduring ghost of the At Large - however I'm 
> much more interested in our own agenda and how we organise and build up 
> our independent identity (which has precious little to do with Icann as 
> far as I'm concerned).
Richard,
that show is only of interest to understand who is ICANN addict, who has 
not yet understood what ICANN is and which among American persons are going 
to look at least a fool for fighting the interests of their own country.

Let spells the things out again so they cannot say they were not told

- ICANN is the USG agency for Internet management (cf. many posts of Joe Sims)

- until 9/11 its mission was to entrap GAC members through ccTLD contracts 
into accepting the 47 USC 230 (f)(1) defined USG jurisdiction over the 
Internet. This was mainly supposed to transform an illegal status -  in 
most of the countries - of the ccTLDs into a contract with the local 
administration with the supposed advantage of fostering local competition. 
That strategy mostly failed.

- since 9/11 the mission is to share into the US Homeland "virtual soil" 
defense,  extending the US e-umbrella to the g/sTLDs and countries of which 
the ccTLD the Manager has or will contract and copy his zone (to accustom 
him to security checks from ICANN). That mission includes desinformation on 
US e-Development Race to delay the European and Asian effort. 
Practicalities, probably including the end of Joe Sims mission (said he) 
and Stuart Lynn (said he) have been announced to be worked out after 
Shanghai (probably in coordination with the other Cyberspace Security main 
participants, as announced by the White House draft).

- as way to lead the ccTLD to sign, ICANN addicts (atlarge) could have been 
useful. They helped delaying interests in the real nature of ICANN, but 
they did not bring the support of ccTLDs and Govs. ALSC was a way to see if 
they could be used. After 9/11 and the start of the eWar Effort, their 
interest dropped, except as transmission belts (at-large.org) and ways to 
try to internally influence foreign Govs and get informations and contacts. 
That interest was first estimated nil and they were killed. They have been 
revived as part of the smokescreen (there are no private Members of the CIA 
or CIAO :-) but carry no other interest for ICANN intelligence that being 
useful manipulated benevolent people.

- the BoD has no, has never had and will never have any interest, except as 
a makebelieve about the international nature of ICANN. Joe Sims has clearly 
documented that they picked members - except a few to be their shepherds - 
only because they could manipulate them.

- Staff as everyone knows is purely American. It would be unadvisable it 
would be otherwise. As a French citizen I would not accept that a sensible 
French Gov Agency would be manned by foreign people and I suppose anyone 
would think the same. These people receives directives from the US 
Administration, cooperate with the Administration, obey US laws and share 
with US network culture (or lack of as we European would see it). We have 
no reason to believe there are any bad citizen there.

- The legal status found by Joe Sims for ICANN is quite astute as it 
permits to have an USG Agency run as a private corporation. I suppose that 
for "tax, better management, respect of the users of Internet" ICANN will 
not be reniewed as such and will be transferred or better related with ISOC 
in Sept 2003, plainly getting a part of the .org funding (it was probably 
an idea of Mike Roberts with Plan B. Mike who hijacked ".edu" to the 
benefit of the US education industry).


IMHO all this is well made, fair and correctly carried - except some 
concussion, but you cannot prevent that. I suppose ARIN will keep arguing 
(and delaying a joint European position) until there is an arbitration 
before the end of the year or - unless a new IPv6 plan is decided as part 
of the IPv6 review.

However, there is a basic mistake. Even a Republican administration, they 
cannot lock the world out. The Internet is global, the threat is global. 
The response cannot be only local, regional and national. It has to be 
global too. Our people in Shanghai should sense the mood about that, and 
the way their Chinese guests will react to that (I have noted the lack of 
exchange on the GA between Chinese and ICANN).

USG ICANN's strategy is wrong IMHO and we need to help them to correct it. 
But this has nothing to do with Shanghai. It has to do with local town-hall 
meetings. If there is no cooperation with us, we will have to build the 
network against the US instead of with them. That would be a bad move. When 
you want to make a diversity made stable, secure and innovative you can 
force it into a stable, secure and innovative unity or you can help the 
diversity organizing into something stable, secure, innovative... in the 
first case you risk the unity has a leak and you are naked, or blow-up and 
you are dead. In the second case building it is more risky, more complex, 
but it is far lasting and rewarding.

IMHO this is what they are to decide now and probably made their mind the 
wrong way, so we have to force them to change.
jfc


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de