Re: [icann-eu] Does the ICANN legally exist (this is not a joke)?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jeff,

At 02:53 09/12/00, you wrote:
> > I had then to inform the destinees of the true nature of my thinking,
> > since obviously Peter de Blanc (and probably the others) had been
> > misinformed by Alexander's reading.
>
>I don't see any indication that anyone was mislead by Alexanders
>reading.

Peter de Blanc though and refused "my" idea of  "handing the ICANN
to ccTLDs" which is the wording of Alexander and which is strictly
what I fight (or the ccTLDs creating their own ICANN).

>Rather I did sense that your idea was overly centered on ccTLD
>registries representation, and leaves out gTLD registries for the most part.
>You later somewhat corrected that.  But it is still unclear.

Yes. It is not unclear. It is more complex than that.

1. I use the CA law (at least as understood by the ICANN people
     from arcive) to propose - as per I presume Joe Sims own words -
     one of the "devices that more creative minds could devise".

     This after having considered that the way ICANN is built is "an
     unusual approach" and cannot "be based on clear legal precedent",
     both in California itself according to the same source, but also
     in the international field which has been totally overlooked.

2. The ICANN has three areas of interest : protocols, IP address
     and domain names. In the domain name areas it is concerned
     by Registries and Registrars. NICs are concerned by ALL these
     activities. NSI and the new Registries are not.

     There is a language confusion beween ccTLDs and NICs. NICs
     are registries and registrars for their own ccTLD(s). They may
     have selected registrars. They may handle IP addresses and
     may wantto share in the root service. Their number is limited
     to one per country and they are supervised by heir Government
     Member of the GAC.

     Today gTLDs are ".info", ".museum" etc... The rôle of NSI in the
     root server is going to be reduced (only runs 2 machines) and they
     will focus on ".com", ".net",, ".org" ... There are to be millions of
     them.

3. The Cooperative Model introduces no change in the USG accepted
     ICANN structure. It only adds a Statutory Members General
     Assembly as permitted by the existing model.

     The TLDs are not represented at the Board nor at the NC. I am
     OK for something being done for the NC.

     I only say that *due to their real involvement* in these matters
     one ccTLD whoul be present in the BoD representation of each SO.
     To my kniwledge gTLDs do not certify registrars the way ICANN,
     does not alocate IP addresses and are not involved in the DNS
     root server system (NSI has only 2 root machines).

4. all the @large issues are in current Corporate and in Cooperative
     models covered within the @large structure. I consider that the
     gTLds by million are an @large dominated issue. There are 9
     Directors for them (today from Fujitisu, Ghana NIC to European
     Hackers).

You see that our difference i you want to give the ccTLDs 6 Directors
they will never have and do not want, the Coopeative model gives
them the General Assembly transformed into a TLD senate.


> > The Californian law gives the interesting opportunity to use the
> > GA as an *additional* instance, with powers and duties in areas
> > of cc/gTLDs concerns and usual limitations otherwise.
>
>The GA?  Do you mean the ICANN/GA or the DNSO GA?  Please
>be specific.  One is vastly different than the other.

General Assembly of the Corporation.

> > Proposing to cleverly use that possibility purportedly prepared
> > (yet overlooked) by the "Membership analysis" discussion is by
> > no means "handing the ICANN to the ccTLDs" !!!
>
>I never thought your idea was "handing the ICANN to the ccTLDs",
>but was leaving out the gTLD registries and hence the vast majority of the
>stakeholders.  In addition the percentage of the representation on the
>ICANN board for the ccTLD's was too small given the amount of the
>budget that the current ICANN board is demanding from the ccTLD's
>presently.  These were my points and concerns as to your idea.

I suppose you got it now. You cannot count the @large twice. You
mmay count it as communities (gTLDs) or as individual voters as
we did for the last elections. I take them into account as individuals
belonging to a community. For the unity of the network I want
elections to be direct.

> > It is the *absolute* contrary! It is making an internal cooperation
> > attractive enough to ccTLDs for them to fully cooperate and develop
> > the ICANN as the stakeholders' "common house".
>
>Again you leave out the gTLD's Jefsey.  Why?

OI hope you got it know? But is I write NICs less people will understand
than ccTLDs, but you are right: I should write more often NIC in that
context.

Jesey