Re: [ICANN-EU] European At Large Council

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Alexander I think you make a point.

Whe I consider it this is what I did;

- the icann-fre@egroups.com focuses on icann related discussions
   as this one but in French language and I suggest the icann-ger does
   the same. This icann-europe keeping the leadership.

- the ip-france@egroups.com is a practical list for candidates as a
   test bed for a possible I-Parliament Club set up as a :

   - working, mutual get together and train, control per information,
     documention service, dirctionnary, etc.. stuff

   - open to all board members and candidates of/to BoDs of internet
     organizations (ie. internet concerned people). Shaped as ad-hoc
     MLs with a common site and a small no-powers secretariat. .

I feel the I-P project is of interest but should be discussed better.
May be in the Paris Meeting if wa can set it up?
Jefsey

At 12:19 05/09/00, you wrote:

>Dear Andy (M.-M.),
>
>I strongly agree that ICANN's decisions are not
>purely technical, but can also have political and
>economic impacts. But I don't think we should /broaden/
>ICANN's political role even more. It seems to me you
>want to use the interest in ICANN and have the European
>At Large Platform/Council debate about everything in
>the area of net politics -- including content control.
>
>You wrote:
> > I think the main point is, that such a european communication plattform,
> > forum, council, call-it-like-you-want makes sense itself, getting
> > european user groups closer together, adressing issues to politics,
> > to the media and not only to ICANN. When you look at special issues
> > like "lawful interception" (that european echelon stuff) it might be
> > important to adress ETSI as well as ICANN. And/or IETF. And/Or
> > all european ISPīs. And/or european parliament (copyright controll
> > discussion).
>
>I understand (and share) your interest in more transnational
>debate about such issues, but I would like to keep e.g.
>"that european echelon stuff" off any ICANN lists. Let's
>not turn the ICANN At Large membership into a political
>pressure group for *all* net-related issues; it will be hard
>enough to reach anything like rough consensus on *ICANN*-
>related issues.
>
>Earlier you wrote (31.8.00):
> > I think it is important to integrate existing NGOīs
> > who care about issues like privacy, citizens +
> > crypto rights etc.
>
>Privacy groups already speak up e.g. when it comes to WHOIS.
>Citizen groups speak up when it comes to the new TLDs. Maybe
>there is also a connection between ICANN issues and
>cryptography -- but if there isn't, let's not mix everything
>up.
>I would very much like to hear other people's opinions on
>combining general net politics issues with ICANN issues.
>
> > And to avoid exactly this we need physical regulary meetings in different
> > european places on the issues to be adressed to ICANN. Mailing lists and
> > News Groups are great to get an broad band diversity of ideas and
> > opinions, but if we need to concentrate on finding a concensus, solution
> > and/or clear statement to a question, itīs much easier in real life and/or
> > on a mailing list with a clear focus on that. To avoid misunderstandings:
> > A clear statement could also be, that on special questions there simply
> > is no represantative statement to make for all user and that the issue
> > and/or structure should allow different users interests.
>
>Agreed. Maybe there is a chance to get the final
>European candidates together for a public discussion
>before the election?
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>_______________________________________________________
>   ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de