Re: [ICANN-EU] (Almost) Required Reading.

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Thomas,
I think you for your comments. I will see if modifing the text is
appropriate as you seem to be mislead. The action points are about
the @large priorities. Not about things to be achieved now.

The question of the 4 ALDs must be put into the current trend of
modifying the by laws to adap to the situation.

At 22:30 18/10/00, you wrote:
>On 2000-10-17 13:00:19 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > - make sure the 4 ALDs get elected (otherwise interim would
> >     become permanent) and elected by @large.
>Did you read the bylaws?

Sure. One of the current trend is to say "only 2 real @large have
been elected and the result is 'poor'. So why not to consider that
the NC, BC etc... selected people can replace the @large". In the
discussed scheme not only the 4 remaining ALDs would not be
elected, but the 5 current ones would not be renewed.

Our priroirty is to lobby with concrete propositions, so the dispute
is not about the exitence of the ALDs but on the way and when they
are elected. Demanding them to be elected now through a change
in the by laws is the best way to make sure that the by-laws change
does not suppress them. Remember that by-laws are not a Charter.
This is just what in French what we call a "Reglement Intérieur", ie
internal rules. Their importance only comes from the extepected
difficulty in finding a consensus in changing them. Our fight is for
statu quo - ie election in 2002; possibly before. We have to demand
more (and better) to hope to stay with what we have today.

Elementary rule in lobbying.

> > -  make sure that @large is not taken over by Universal Sleeping
> >     Rules and Procedures. This is foreseen for a long: what they are
> >     going to propose is the "study".
>
>The study isn't a proposal.  It's in the bylaws.

Sure. Joe Sims is as good as anyone. Would you have accepted
the @large and not protected the ICANN in writing the rules?  Who
could know that the system would work. I think the study principle
as well as the split over two years was elementary and good protection.
The draw back is (and I am sure Joe Sims is no fool) that it can be
used in various ways: to boost or to kill the @large process. The way
the study will be proposed, handled and managed will make a huge
difference. Exemple: did you repond the DNSO/NC questions?

> >     Six month study and assesment plus three months proposition
> >     plus three month decision to know how to get the 4 ALDs
> >     elected. Look at DNSO.
>
>Wrong.  See above.

True. In the meanwhile, due to all the changes, press attention,
withrawall of the CoD, etc.. they will have had to change the by-laws.
There will not be anyone anymore to control them and it will a free
body of 17+2 people doing what they want.

Actually we should not accept the removal of the CoD before all the
board got elected, either in 2002 or before. Sitting for 4 years is a
bit long for an interim Board.

> > -  make sure the @large momentum is preserved and enlarged to
> >     other bodies (IEFT, .. WIPO) and in using the people and press
> >     feeling that ICANN has decided to be democratic.
>
>What problem do you have with IETF?

I think that what is good for ICANN is true too for every other Internet
so-called governance body. @large are the users. The 9 to 10 repartition
at the ICANN BoD makes them auditors rather than leaders. This is good.
The @large represents in the "internet constitution" a kind of control or
appeal which is missing, also a permanent market study. This is unique
in this industry and is a huge advantage for the internet as it may both
correct drifts and permit to focus on really demanded items.

In the case of the WIPO, you certainly see the implications it might have.

In the case of IEFT @large people will not interfere with technicalities
but they will serve as a permanent test bed of the concepts and a way to
better asses priorities. Also in making sure that hidden technicalities
do not have perverse effects or conflicts with regulations or politically
advisable trends. In particular I would be very interested in having @large
involved in issues like :
- international domain names as the IEFT is politically a way to balance
   NSI's "test bed" approach
- IPv6 as the implications on everyone's life and expenses is tremendous.
- "spamming" protocol and the management of the advertizing wich is a
   very well accepted permanent spamming.
- DNS new services

So what we think is that the @wide constituency (all the end users by
themseleves) must be present in the @large presence of the different
bodies. This may also be true in a certain way with VeriSign, etc ...
You see we have things similar to ATT, Bell Labs, Police, etc.. affecting
our day to day lives and the future of the world. If these organizations
want to stay - and we need them - must be accepted. Control is part of
their acceptance by the public/users.

Jefsey