Re: [ICANN-EU] Do you agree to this, Statement no. one:

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Alf,
Good! I understand your use of the word "owner" and your good question.

If I understand technical lawyers like Jamie Love, Karl Auerbach and al.
the issue is  two folded:

- as it is today: the ICANN is incorporated as a non profit corporation
   under the lwas of California. This seem to mean that it is "owned"
   not for profit by the Members. Today that Members as far as I
   understand (please let me be corrected by who knows better) are:

    -  non disclosed people of unknown number having been registered
       as such in the books of the ICANN. This people have the ultimate
       GA decision.
    -  every person participating to the BoD election process. This is
       the reason of the "selection" processus used by ICANN. This
       legal right could lead to the @large being Members (and paying
      a Membership?.

- as it could :

    I would certainly second your suggestion than the ICANN be "owned"
    by the ISOC. This seems to be the most sensible thing (however
    probably calling for a lot of adaptations) to have a single structure
    gathering all the users.

    Today we see different "corporations" representing a few technical,
    commercial, etc. de facto owners taking advantage from the "votes"
    of the same group of interested/dedicated individuals (between 300
    and 2000) registered on different MLs. I would favor forgeting that
    top down approch and to have a bottom up one: an unique college
    gathering all that dedicated individuals and this individuals attending
    specialized WG (ICANN, IEFT, etc..) and working by consensus
    as explained on this ML is reponse to Jeanette (nobody wants
    democracy to make bytes transfered but that its technically,
    financially and legally works.

The ICANN could be that college, should it stick to the law and by-laws:
-  everyone competent enough may be a Member
-  every interest is treated equal
-  with a clerical role only toward consensus
-  the SO, WG, etc.. being delegated authority into their field
-  fair representation of the needs of individual DN owners, end
    users, commercial and non governmental organization, govts.
    etc.. real democracy being "one need one vote".

Obviously the management effort would be tremendous for the ISOC.
This is why we are investibgating the I-Parliament Club as one of
the alternative to create a defacto controlling and concertation power
together with the press.

The only thing is that today many still believe that the ICANN is
owned by the CoD.
Jefsey


At 13:11 30/09/00, you wrote:
>Hi,
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > Alf,
> > this is a scoop to me: you found the ICANN's owners.
> > I presume you mean the true unknown legal members?
> > Or did I miss something?
> > Jefsey
> >
> > At 20:45 29/09/00, you wrote:
> > >The ICANN Board and ICANN's owners should develop a concrete plan with a
> > >timescale for the achievement of this goal, including a study of the
> > >Legal and Regulatory aspects of such transition.
>
>The Global Internet Community is the true ICANN owners. Who can be able
>to represent this community as formal owners of a private non-commercial
>company like ICANN? I have no answer (yet). Do you think the Internet
>Society (ISOC) could be a candidate?
>
>Best regards,
>--
>Alf Hansen                     Mail address:
>                                  UNINETT FAS A/S
>aha@uninett.no                   N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
>Home page:                     Phone: +47 73 55 79 00
>http://domen.uninett.no/~alf/ Fax:   +47 73 55 79 01