Re: [icann-eu] Does the ICANN legally exist (this is not a joke)?

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

Jefsey and all,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> At 02:53 09/12/00, you wrote:
> > > I had then to inform the destinees of the true nature of my thinking,
> > > since obviously Peter de Blanc (and probably the others) had been
> > > misinformed by Alexander's reading.
> >
> >I don't see any indication that anyone was mislead by Alexanders
> >reading.
>
> Peter de Blanc though and refused "my" idea of  "handing the ICANN
> to ccTLDs" which is the wording of Alexander and which is strictly
> what I fight (or the ccTLDs creating their own ICANN).

  I don't know of any effort of consideration that the ccTLD registries
are interested in creating their own ICANN.  However it has been
discussed amongst several private groups that some ccTLD registries
along with some existing gTLD registries (i.e. ORSC et al) might
be interested in joining forces in breaking away from ICANN due
to the intractable attitude that the current ICANN board including
the boardsquatters have recently displayed at MDR and afterward.

>
>
> >Rather I did sense that your idea was overly centered on ccTLD
> >registries representation, and leaves out gTLD registries for the most part.
> >You later somewhat corrected that.  But it is still unclear.
>
> Yes. It is not unclear. It is more complex than that.
>
> 1. I use the CA law (at least as understood by the ICANN people
>      from arcive) to propose - as per I presume Joe Sims own words -
>      one of the "devices that more creative minds could devise".

  Joe Simms understanding of California law is mixed at best.  I would
seek your own professional legal experts for a more independent
evaluation of California Law in this regard.  We already have, BTW.

>
>
>      This after having considered that the way ICANN is built is "an
>      unusual approach" and cannot "be based on clear legal precedent",
>      both in California itself according to the same source, but also
>      in the international field which has been totally overlooked.

  This ICANN board and before it the ICANN initial Board has pandered
about with it's understanding of International law.  The fact is that under
existing Paris accords ICANN is in violation as well as with the
Telecommunications Act, and the GATT agreements which offer a
reasonable framework by which ICANN could have based it's
precepts on policy upon.  This ICANN board, as such, has not done
so.  Therefore, we [INEGRoup], and especially our EU and Asian
members have grave and great difficulties with this ICANN Boards
behavior.  This also has been borne out on several documented
occasions, even recently, in the German, UK, and US press.

>
>
> 2. The ICANN has three areas of interest : protocols, IP address
>      and domain names. In the domain name areas it is concerned
>      by Registries and Registrars. NICs are concerned by ALL these
>      activities. NSI and the new Registries are not.

  I don't see how you can say that new registries are not concerned with
Domain Names, IP addresses and protocols?   Of course they either are,
or will be.

>
>
>      There is a language confusion beween ccTLDs and NICs. NICs
>      are registries and registrars for their own ccTLD(s). They may
>      have selected registrars. They may handle IP addresses and
>      may wantto share in the root service. Their number is limited
>      to one per country and they are supervised by heir Government
>      Member of the GAC.

  The GAC is a Governmental Advisory Committee, not a policy making body
per se.  As such it's influence although significant is still limited as the GAC
is currently formed.

>
>
>      Today gTLDs are ".info", ".museum" etc... The rôle of NSI in the
>      root server is going to be reduced (only runs 2 machines) and they
>      will focus on ".com", ".net",, ".org" ... There are to be millions of
>      them.

 Yes, but their are other existing Root structures.  They can and do to some
extent interface seamlessly now.

>
>
> 3. The Cooperative Model introduces no change in the USG accepted
>      ICANN structure. It only adds a Statutory Members General
>      Assembly as permitted by the existing model.
>
>      The TLDs are not represented at the Board nor at the NC. I am
>      OK for something being done for the NC.
>
>      I only say that *due to their real involvement* in these matters
>      one ccTLD whoul be present in the BoD representation of each SO.
>      To my kniwledge gTLDs do not certify registrars the way ICANN,
>      does not alocate IP addresses and are not involved in the DNS
>      root server system (NSI has only 2 root machines).

  Currently under the IANA/ICANN their are 3 IP registries, RIPE, ARIN,
and APNIC.  However their is now IPv8 with it's own registries that are
not reflected at any of the IANA/ICANN IP registries.  In fact, the IANA
and ICANN doe not even except the IPv8 protocol to date.  Yet several
providers do.

>
>
> 4. all the @large issues are in current Corporate and in Cooperative
>      models covered within the @large structure. I consider that the
>      gTLds by million are an @large dominated issue. There are 9
>      Directors for them (today from Fujitisu, Ghana NIC to European
>      Hackers).
>
> You see that our difference i you want to give the ccTLDs 6 Directors
> they will never have and do not want, the Coopeative model gives
> them the General Assembly transformed into a TLD senate.

  I don't see this potential (Senate) here Jefsey.  I see that current ICANN
Board changing in order to reflect accurately the representation of the
ccTLD registries and the gTLD registries.

>
>
> > > The Californian law gives the interesting opportunity to use the
> > > GA as an *additional* instance, with powers and duties in areas
> > > of cc/gTLDs concerns and usual limitations otherwise.
> >
> >The GA?  Do you mean the ICANN/GA or the DNSO GA?  Please
> >be specific.  One is vastly different than the other.
>
> General Assembly of the Corporation.

Is this in your terminology the @large?

>
>
> > > Proposing to cleverly use that possibility purportedly prepared
> > > (yet overlooked) by the "Membership analysis" discussion is by
> > > no means "handing the ICANN to the ccTLDs" !!!
> >
> >I never thought your idea was "handing the ICANN to the ccTLDs",
> >but was leaving out the gTLD registries and hence the vast majority of the
> >stakeholders.  In addition the percentage of the representation on the
> >ICANN board for the ccTLD's was too small given the amount of the
> >budget that the current ICANN board is demanding from the ccTLD's
> >presently.  These were my points and concerns as to your idea.
>
> I suppose you got it now. You cannot count the @large twice. You
> mmay count it as communities (gTLDs) or as individual voters as
> we did for the last elections.

  No, I see the gTLD registries as independent entities as are the ccTLD
registries.  I see the @Large as Domain Name holders in either.

> I take them into account as individuals
> belonging to a community. For the unity of the network I want
> elections to be direct.
>
> > > It is the *absolute* contrary! It is making an internal cooperation
> > > attractive enough to ccTLDs for them to fully cooperate and develop
> > > the ICANN as the stakeholders' "common house".
> >
> >Again you leave out the gTLD's Jefsey.  Why?
>
> OI hope you got it know? But is I write NICs less people will understand
> than ccTLDs, but you are right: I should write more often NIC in that
> context.
>
> Jesey

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208