Re: AW: [ICANN-EU] AMM's "government statement"

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Alf,
Just a few comments.
At 00:08 19/10/00, you wrote:
>Andy Mueller-Maguhn wrote:
>My comment was based on the English FAZ article. That is what people
>will read, not what we discuss here.
>
>I agree with the importance of user influence. ICANN's focus is not on
>information content. Again, the focus must be on Names, Addresses,
>Protocols, and this focus is important in order to keep the Internet
>Interconnected for Everyone. I think it is misleading people to use the
>term "Government" to describe the ICANN Board. It is a Board.
>
>If we are not making ICANN a stable organisation soon, the result may be
>that Governments will be forced to take over. And that is not what we
>want. Even if lawers and national governments can be useful for users...

I do not see what is wrong in things "useful for users".
The question is only to know if it is useful for them or not.


> > Just look at the french registry (allowing french citizen not
> > to get a domain, only open for companies and governments),
> > the missing icann policy (that the internetīs name space is
> > a public space) and the consequences.
>We just heared from Olivier Guillard that this is a wrong description.

I hardly understand how you can construe that from Oliver's inputs.
But I can tell you that this is true. I am most probably the only
"Jefsey" in the world. And I cannot get "jefsey.fr" without bringing
a "K-Bis" ie a document proving I am a business company.

> > Of course, if Icann would make such a policy, the french
> > government could override such a policy and still let itīs
> > ccTLD registration only open for companies & governments.
> > But then people would realize what the french government
> > is doing, more people would ask them why and - call me
> > naive if you want - in the long term road, such an undemocratic
> > behaviour would have a chance to change or other action
> > to be taken to give french citizens an name space asylum
> > (maybe in .eu ?).
>This, too.

What Andy is describing is what we are doing all the decades
long in France. Do you mean we do not know what we do :-) ?
BTW the argument is between me and Olivier. Olivier wants to
change the French society, but certainly not the rules of "his"
AFNIC :-) !


> > So, I didnīt wanted Icann to be regarded as a world
> > government (to be able to override national laws), I want
> > it to make politics that symbolically fit in the tasks
> > icann has.
>
>ICANN should make politics for names, addresses and protocols. Not for
>Internet content or information policies or trade mark policy or policy
>for building democracy or other general political aspects.

Agreed. But what does an UDRP do? It takes into account much more
element (good faitth, dates, fame, user response, local oddity,
semantic, etc.. etc..) to take and try to enforce decisions by the only
legitimity of ICANN.

> > thanx for your understanding,
>
>I understand. But we are in disagreement about ICANN's role.

Agreed.
You stick to the by-laws and White Paper. And I presume you are right.

But ICANN does not respect them - and have good reasons for that.
So do we have to call the ICANN to the order or to try to put some
order in the World? This is a very good question. I have not the response.

Jefsey