Re: [icann-eu] draft-tlr-study-03.txt (was: LAST CALL)

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

>ftp://fitug.fitug.de/pub/icann-drafts/draft-tlr-study-03.txt


Thomas,

I waited you had well prepared your draft study to comment it.

1. my current involvement in ccTLDs issues did not give me time
     to do otherwise
2. France@large is meeting only tomorrow to discuss that point.


I apologize for my negative comments to follow. Please understand
that I agree and applaud to everything which is not mentioned here,
and that critics on one point take some room :-)
and that critics are really easy when you do not do the work ....


1. I do not understand why the Staff would be thanked to interfere.
     ICANN is not directed by Staff but by the current BoD. It happens
     that by several maneuvers prepared by bylaws changes we are in
     a situation where the ambitions of a few may lead to the ICANN
     collapse. Through this study, through gTLD absurd management,
     through total lack of understanding of the iDNs issues, through an
     incredible contempt at their non American partners.

     I accept you try to do your job and try to work a solution for this
     study from this mess, as I try to do it in some other parts. But
     please do not start thanking them for that! Tell them that what
     is to follow is a firm and peaceful presentation, and that any
     trespassing will incur atomic response.

2. You cannot have a clean-sheet approach and limit yourself
     to a representation of the users interests (what you present as
     the maximum possibility). The organization of the @large in
     many different fields must be considered. ff we are in a clean-
     sheet approach we must start asking if there must be 0 or 19
     @large Directors. And then document why we think appropriate
     with the founders of the ICANN there are only 9 or 10 of them.

3. I am not sure I understand the sentence about a constellation.
     I do not grasp the English meaning of it: what is the constellation
     in here?

4.  When you talk about "current board" structure, I suppose
     you mean 9+1+9. They will understand 5 elected @large +
     4 selected @large.

5. The phrase "and that five of them continue to be elected
     directly" is to be removed to reflect the truth.

6. I know that in your+jeannette list of points the demands
     concerning the @large directors elections were not very
     demanding. But the position of the list and of the GA is
     clear: "9 @large directors elected" ASAP, the "4 squatters
     out" and "as soon elected as soon seated".

     I do not understand the reasoning of your position: you
     should explain if you think you have a good reason.

7. If I read you well Hans Kraaijenbrink + Matsamu Katoh
    is your favorite ticket for handling the Study. I think we
    should be clear: no current Director should be involved
    in a study concerning other Directors. If experience is
    to be found, it should be looked for among former Directors.

8. I understand you want Jeannette to participate to the
     study, but your suggestion is too transparent. The study
     team should meet and report on the @large groups, initiatives,
     development, sites, etc... existing or currently developing.
     (the study will be carried 3 to 9 months from now).

9. You seem to presuppose that the Chair or the co-Chairs
     will biased against @large (ie against the USG position)
     and you plead for a solutions to deal with that. I think
     the prerequisites are:
     - every Chair and co-Chair to be unbiased
     - to represent a world area
     - the Chair (and the future ICANN President also) not to
       be of the same citizenship as the ICANN Chair.

The text you propose seems to be otherwise a good introduction
but it focuses on the least important and pragmatic issues
(the one the Staff proposed, which probably wants an
unproductive result as it has no funding and wants time to advise).
There are certainly many issues I do not cover down here, but which
belongs to such a preparatory document as:

10. The study should start with the analysis of the @large
      existing reality, if it exists.
      Then to define its boarders.
      The number of concerned people and the minimum
      proportion to obtain representation
      permanent affiliation
      What are their components and structures
      What is its real nature (we know in France they are the
      real owners of the whole game as user and producers)

11. The constituencies should be defined: are 5 geographical
     areas the only possible splits? Under representation
     of South Pacific, India ....

12. Should we not have a two step election with an international
     user group, where every country is represented (including UK,
     France, Germany, NZ, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Austria,
     Luxembourg, etc...) and the Directors are elected? On which
     electing system?

13. What is the target/part of the @large representation in the
      equilibrium of the ICANN and its survivability

14. How the @large - who represent the market - may benefit
      to the operators gathered in the SO constituencies?

15. Which kind of power balancing could be reached within
       the ICANN in using the @large capacities.

16. Which changes in the ICANN structures should be contemplated
      due to the emergence of the @large:
      -  IDNO representation
      -  replacement of the DNSO/GA
      -  presence of the @large within the LIC near the ccTLDs
      -  relations between the @large and the gTLDs
      -  @large TLDs

17. relations of the @large with the other governance institutions
       (IEFT, WIPO, ...or parallel institutions (media, TV, Telephone,
       games, etc...)

18. Financing of the @large related issues.

19. Permanent polling of the @large positions. Relations with
      the board, etc....

20. Risks of the @large taking over the ICANN through:
       - NICs
       - UN or GAC
       - self organization
       - scenarii: ICANN failure, lack of result of the CRADA
         market development supporting @large development
         etc...

21. Elections practical systems, Past errors, concepts for
      the future. Polling booth.


I know I change the spirit of your document. Did you work
with hans Klein on it? The ICC should help you and participate.
You take all the work on your shoulder, I am sorry I can only
criticize and I have no time to help. We will discuss that tomorrow
at France@large and see if some of us could contribute or if all
of them are too much disapointed with the ICANN.

Sursum Corda.
Jefsey