Re: [atlarge-discuss] The web page

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey, Richard and all stakeholders/users or other interested parties and
members,

  Richard, and all members, Jefsey is essentially correct here (See
below).

  However the fact that Jefsey is correct says nothing to wheather we should
or should not work to try to improve or assist ICANN.  It is a matter
of if such an effort is worth it, and at the same time helps stakeholders/users
have an equal voice and a vote in policy decisions.  So all of us should
think very hard about this as it will play a very important role in the
health, and longevity of this organization...

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> 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
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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