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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

At 10:12 01/12/00, you wrote:
>On 2000-12-01 05:01:53 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > I waited you had well prepared your draft study to comment it.
>First of all, that's not a draft study, but comments on the staff
>paper about the study.

OK. Let say that I consider that as a study to prepare such a
comment. The comments expected by the Staff and the BoD are
to be far more detailed and complex than this. IMHO.

> > and that critics are really easy when you do not do the work ....
>And, in particular, if you had one week to post them since the
>latest draft.

I am afraid I did not have had really more than half an hour à '4:30
in the morning, sorry.

> > 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.
>
>First of all, the staff is apparently donig some work on making this
>study possible.  Thanking them for this, and for having set up the
>possibility to comment, is (1) a matter of politeness, and (2) helps
>to create a more friendly and possibly constructive atmosphere.

I fully agree with what you try to do. But IMHO you misread the
situation. So let clarify why I want you to be tough with our friends
of the Staff (they most probably read that mail).

I think they consider they have been forced to write their document
the way they did (clean sheet, limited topics, etc...) and the hope
we will ask for more in the common interest. IMHO they do want
our response to be tough (do not misread the relation between
Peter Dengate Trush/Peter de Blanc and Staff: tough, grown boys
and on a good track). When you work together with other people
and have something tough to accomplish you like solid, bold and
firm people in front of you.

Please rememebr what Esther Dyson did say. What Staff wants
is a tough response saying NO, NO, NO, BUT, BUT, BUT,
PLUS, PLUS, PLUS. The more you add things of real value,
the more your show that the situation is complex and that many
interests are involved, starting with the interests of the SO's
parties, the more youplease them because you give them tools
against those who displease them as much as you.

I certainly take a bet that Mike, Andrew and all are as much
wanting the things to be cool, smooth and well oiled as you.

>Finally, could you please show me what kind of nuclear arsenal we
>have, with the possible exception of public embarassment (which
>isn't a "nuclear" option, to begin with)?

That is something we are actively working on !!! (Obviously you do
not develop it in one day)

> > 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).
>I don't understand?  What we are saying is this: From known
>a-priori-bounds on the possible consensus, the clean-sheet approach
>is too broad, and won't necessarily produce consensus.  Thus,
>abandon it, and do the study within the constraints we have.

What I mean the open question is from 0 to 19 @large Directors

> > 5. The phrase "and that five of them continue to be elected
> >    directly" is to be removed to reflect the truth.
>You don't think there is a public expectation that at least five of
>the directors be elected directly?

I want 9 of them elected in the best way. I am not sure that directly
is the best way. I consider that the US presidential election is direct
and indirect and could be a good model. But this is just an idea of
mine.

<snip>

> > 8. I understand you want Jeannette to participate to the study,

<snip>

>You seem to see hidden agendas where there are none.

I justed noted it because everyone reads that as Jeannette or
Barbara being proposed.

<snip>

>  No, I don't presuppose that.  Rather, I'm afraid that the Chair may
>be seen as a alibi person in public.  In order to avoid that, I
>suggest to look at the real weights on the Committee, and select the
>Chair or co-Chairs accordingly.

I agree, but tough again, if the study is a fake, we will treat it as
a joke. A French definition of the ICANN is "an american joke
we will get rid of if it becomes a bore".

You only address the 9 first and and least important point in my mail.
The new ideas are what the Staff is expecting on IMHO.

I must go. Sorry, but I wanted this to be said before we would
sleep on it.
Friendly
Jefsey