Re: [members-meeting] Re: [icann-eu] Summary

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

Jefsey and all,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear T,
>
> At 15:50 06/12/00, you wrote:
> >roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com (Wed 12/06/00 at 11:55 AM +0100):
> > > To be pragmatic, and accepting the will of the majority who sees this
> > > short-sighted ancillary benefits as "incredibly valuable", may I ask
> > you to
> > > what extent do we risk to lose them in case of a mixed system (5 direct
> > + 4
> > > indirect). IANAL, but it seems to me that the moment you have even just 1
> > > Director elected directly, you qualify for being a membership organization.
> >
> >that might be true in theory, but then the status karl was speaking
> >of would depend on just one director rather than on five or nine of
> >them. that's not pragmatic.
>
> We are on the verge of a study supposed to propose a consensus. This
> means the community is to find and negotiate an equilibrium. When you
> start a negotiation you must know what you are going to claim, what you
> are going to refuse and what you are going to concede.

  Agreed here.

>
>
> The Board for various contradictory reasons has decided a "clean-sheet"
> study. For contradictory reasons I accept that, but I want to take advantage
> from it. Since it is really clean-sheet:
>
> - what we claim is 19 @large Board Members - as our adversaries

  Adversaries?  Why would the @large Board Members be adversaries?

>
> - what we will never concede is less than 9 @large Directors

  We [INEGroup] would agree with this position.

>
> - what we may partly negotiate is the way some of them are going to
>    be elected.

  NO!  Absolutely not!  They MUST be directly elected. Full Stop!

>
>
> What Karl says we will inherit from the principle of @large Directors being
> directly elected is not negotiable: this is our right and it would make
> everyone
> question the Californian nature of the ICANN. Our atomic bomb there is an
> alternative international ICANN as proposed by Roberto.

  Roberto's proposal is both not realistic and could never happen without
allot of government's support globally.

>
>
> But we may obtain it from the law or from the bylaws. If the system of
> modification of the bylaws is changed, granting previsibility to the ICANN
> and stability to the network, we may negotiate we may negotiate for good
> reasons to have them granted by the bylaws *plus* serious advantages.
>
> - today I have not heard a single good reason. We are only talking about
>    5+4 because this was an on the fly compromise explained by Vint Cerf,
>    hardly a good constitutional reason.

  Vint is playing the old political "Soft Shoe" routine.  He is pretty good at
it too.  He also knows that old hands like myself see through his tactics
as well, and will not allow them to go unnoticed...

>
>
> - one advantage of common interest I would like to obtain is to have one
>    ccTLD representative in every SO delegation to the BoD

  Also at least one ccTLD representative on the DNSO NC as well.

>
>
>    -  this would mean ICANN warranties us stability in the international
>       relations (we need them as @large communities)
>
>    -  we would not risk that their representatives would be discounted
>       from the @large Directors set.
>
>    -  we would see the ccTLD satisfied while avoiding a 4th SO and get
>       a good alliance: ccTLDs claim (to the contrary of Louis Touton and
>       DoC) that ccTLD legitimacy does not come from the USG but from
>       us (as LIC: local Internet community) and they have duties to us and
>       to the structuralisation of LICs. It would be logic we avoid a conflict
>       and find an ally with our own partners.

  Louis Touton is a IP Lawyer.  As such, he has a pacarious relationship
with the truth and honesty.  He also has a vested interest in some gTLD
registries that the ICANN board approved.

>
>
> - another advantage of common interest would be the area representation.
>    Indirect election may be a way to democratically balance the democratic
>    unbalance of the Digital Divide. China is telling us today that with India
>    they represent 40% of the population and should claim for 7 Directors.

  You can't base representation on pure population, but rather on
stakeholders which is outlined in the White Paper and the MoU.
As such, this would discount greatly India and China's claim or desire.
However, this does not justify indirect election of @large directors
in any way, contrary to some of the current ICANN Boards thinking.

>
>    A general "rule of area representation" should be established which might
>    include an partly indirect representation system to compensate for the
>    direct election system. But the rule should be general: as Roberto
>    Gaetano and some NC members ask for it: the Chairman and the
>    President should not belong to the same area. And most probably the
>    Directors coming from the SO should not all of them be from the same
>    Area, or should be of different areas. Incidentally that rule should apply
>    to the Study group: every area should be represented.

  What area these representatives come from is really irrelevant.  What
does matter is that they have broad support.

> We also
>    have the Asia/Pacific unbalance due to India and China population
>    size: we have to build for a reasonable future. They claim to have
>    already 850.000 DNs validated in China. We have to make sure that
>    Africa and South-America may protect their interests.
>
> >unless i'm very mistaken, there doesn't seem to be much of a plural-
> >ity of opinion on this list to support an indirect-election option.
>
> My position is neither against, nor for. We want to talk and listen.
> Then to be tough in protecting our interests. Our interests are not
> specifically a number of Directors or a type of election. These are
> only a way to protect them.
>
> >since ICANN's current staff and board has demonstrated that they're
> >fairly hostile to the idea of direct elections,
>
> Where did you see that? They have just organized the direct elections.
> What they say is: "to stay a stable and good solution, ICANN must
> stay small [this I agree], who can we stay small and organize and
> make active a constituency of hundred of thousands or millions, if
> not billion some time, of voters? We need you to tell how you see
> the solution. A solution can be something independent from the
> ICANN (up to you to build it) which would get 9 seats at the board."

  The @large does not need to stay small as Vint Cerf desires.  Rather
it needs to grow to as large as the number of stakeholders become.

  Direct election of @large board members using current electronic
online voting technology is easily doable.

>
>
> What they want is a practical, credible, stable and consensually
> accepted response about associations, media, sites, press, MLs,
> information, polling booth, (re)counts, etc... ... and the funding for it.

  Funding is the biggest problem ICANN faces now in all reality, although
I personally don't see is as that big of a problem.  The problem with
funding this is "How", not "How much".

>
>
> They keep saying "we are not the world government, we cannot
> manage the world constituency without credible help and funds".

  Yes Vint did say something very similar to this as did Esther.  But
the definition of "Credible" is something that is yet to be adequately
defined.

>
>
> >it's certainly true
> >that conceding an indirect method (in whole or part) is more 'prag-
> >matic'--but is that really the point?
>
> IMHO conceding anything before a negotiation is losing it (you shown
> you were ready to accept losing it). But refusing to negotiate is worst
> because the other part will decide without you and most probably
> against you. So we must negotiate the number of Directors, from 0 to
> 19, making clear that we will break under nine and very good reasons
> and advantages for not having all of them directly elected.

  What are those reasons, Jefsey?  I don't know of any that are credible.

>
> This is pragmatism: negotiation is between equals talking together.
>
> Cheers,
> Jefsey

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