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

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

Jefsey and all,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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?.

  In effect this is correct. However the ICANN board and to a lesser but
none the less extent a significant extent, the ICANN staff have manipulated
the @Large to disinclude stakeholders which is stated clearly in the
MoU and the White Paper.  Hence ICANN is in violation of those
singed agreements as well as in violation with it's bylaws.

>
>
> - as it could :
>
>     I would certainly second your suggestion than the ICANN be "owned"
>     by the ISOC.

  I am sorry to hear this from You Jefsey.  I had thought better or you.
The ISOC is a poor choice.  In fact most likely one of the worst choices
that could be made if there was such a choice that was feasible.  The ISOC
has demonstrated its political alliances with large corporations and against
small and medium size organizations and business entities.  Hence the ISOC
as "Owner" as Alf seems to be proposing, would be a skewed choice
at best and a non-starter as a result.

> 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.

  I agree with your conclusion, but not your method or arriving at it.  Your
premise seems invalid and would not necessarily lead to your conclusion.
Hence ICANN should not be "Owned" as Alf suggests.  I understand
fully that Alf is s strong ISOC proponent.  Nothing wrong with that from
where he sits.  But from where the stakeholder sits that is allot wrong
with the ISOC 'Owning" ICANN...

>
>
> 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

  I would differ to a small degree with this.  Delegating this kind
of authority by the stakeholder should have a caveat where any and
all decisions should be a referendum vote by the stakeholder/member
should those policy or technical decisions have a potential profound
effect upon the Member or stakeholder..

>
> -  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

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