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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jeff,
I think we have reahc a point where a good analysis has been done.
I will comment that and go to rest (late in Europe) now the Florida
Supreme court has delayed once again the replacement of Becky
Burr.


At 03:38 09/12/00, you wrote:
> >> Only the ICANN board votes budget for
> > >ICANN as a whole.  Now the NC, votes budget for the DNSO, and
> > >than that is either approved or not approved by the ICANN Board.
> >
> > This is one of the interesting role of a GA a financial report is to be
> > presented to the GA annual meeting..
>
>Yes very interesting.  Especially the part of the budget that deals with
>Perks  of $76K for each board member.



> > >We [INEGroup] strongly disagree here.  THere should be 1/3 of the
> > >ICANN board represented by ccTLD/gTLD entities.
> >
> > Take into account 3 coming from ccTLDs and 9 @large including most
> > probably TLDs representatives ;-)
>
>Hopefully gTLD representatives on the ICANN board will be recognized
>individually instead of through the Registry constituency.  My guess it that
>the current boardsquatters will not look upon the idea of gTLD representatives
>on the ICANN board....

This reason is worth for many. This is why the @large must be direct and
cadidates be elected wor what they are and not the Registry/big firm they
belong to. Nii Quaynor or Karl.. are real @large. Katoh is another brand.
He could certainly be elected as a Fujtisu employee, but as a Japanese
subject supported by his Gov. I have a problem. This is a risk that the
number of voters will reduce. Hence th need of our action in favoir of the
@large development and the need to bring indeas, concepts and support
to the study commission if acceptbale (Greg Crew as a Chair for example).

> > > > - either a TLDSO what calls for a change and an unbalance with the 
> initial
> > > >    targets of the ICANN. This change would probably not be accepted
> > > >    by the USG (as it changes the nature of the ICANN). It would also
> > > >    create problems with the new (million) of TLDs.
> > >
> > >There will never be a million TLD's, Jefsey.
> >
> > I bet my shirt there will be. How many forenames and how many names
> > in the world. Do you think people will easily remember if you are
> > http://jeff.willams.name or http://jeff.williams.nom when you can be
> > http://jeff.williams
>
>The number of names is not really relevant to how many gTLD's will
>be created, not to mention survive.

I name them CINICs (Common Interest NIC), you can create them around
a given common interest (you familiy name, you city, your region, your
trade, etc...). You will subscribe as a Member for the common interest
operations (sales, friendship, promotion, tourism, etc..) and will pay for
the DNs without noticing. They will resist. Roughly a DNs cost $5/year
when commercialy managed by (for example a NIC), the TLD is merely
a few letters added.to a DN. As you probably have "Texas" writen on
your car plates.

> > TLDs is just a discriminator in a menomic semantic directional structure.
> > Gee! I said it! And there are people still confusing that with TMs !!!
> >
> > > > -  or a ccTLDs representation for each of the main subject of the
> > > >      ICANN (these three subjects do interest ccTLDs) and to continue
> > > >      TLDs representation through the NC as per today.
> > >
> > >  Not adequate representation.
> >
> > You do what you want with the NC: this is not something the USG is
> > going look into to know if a responsible and stable non profit organization
> > has been set-up. It does not belong specifically to the Cooperative
> > Model.
>
>The current boardsquatters do not want a cooperative Model unless such
>a model cooperates with their way of thinking.

I am not sure it does not do that. I try to really uinderstand the motivation
they really have. I will meet with a friend belonging to Hans K.'s Teleco
group and hopefully knowing him. I will try to understand.

There are several objections they may have that an organized and stable
model could remove.

> > > >Are you referring to the @Large here?  If so we [INEGroup] agree.
> >
> > The SO and @large Non Statutory Members electing the Board is not
> > usual even under CA law (cf. "Thus, Nonstatutory Members as
> > contemplated as a possibility for ICANN would be an unusual approach,
> > and could not be based on clear legal precedent").
>
>This is legal terminology for the ICANN board to say that they will select
>whom they want to be Statutory members so as to in part insure that any
>voting will go pretty much the way the current boardsquatters desire.
>It is an old political legal trick that is well known in corporate parlance's.
>Mike Roberts, Louis Touton, Hans K., and Joe Simms know this very
>well.  The also know that most people and stakeholders don't know this..

I like your matter of fact diagnosys. I am not far form agreeing. But it
also says that they want to cover their ass in cse it does not work the
way they hope (my question aboutthe ICANN legally existing outside
of the USA).

> > To have a NonStatutory Member structure like used in the ICANN
> > electing the Directors and the StatutoryMembers not electing the
> > Dire tors would certainly fall among the "other devices that more creative
> > minds could devise" (document responding a Staff analysis for the @large
> > council) but it is permitted by the ICANN unique structure.
> > http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership.htm
> > .
> >
> > > > I am sorry, but I think you will disagree with this position. You see,
> > > > in comming month/years TLDs will just be a small community of
> > > > stakeholders. Only a super DN. When we talk about ccTLDs we
> > > > actually talk about NICs, one per country.
> > >
> > >gTLD's can also be arranged through NIC's as well.
> >
> > Yes. This is what I ask for. This is why million of TLDs will occur.
> > I think that ccTLDs/NICs will join in managing the root and will
> > register TLDs.  I think that eventually gTLDs - except may be legacy
> > ones - will join one NIC or another form of  cooperative agreement.
> > Rome has not been built in one day.
>
>Rome is under construction NOW Jefsey, and nearing some final stages
>of construction.  This, the current ICANN board refuses to recognize.

You are right. My own concern is the IP addressing plan as currently
handedl wich is going to affect our life and economy for centuries and
none really conisder as such. This is certainly a technical issue, but
for hundredth of industries, stakeholder groups, etc...so it is political
and of really high concern.

After that Rome will be the Imperial Rome or the Rome of the last days.

> > The Cooperative model does not modify anything existing today.
> > It just *adds*what should be a solution to some existing difficulties.
> >
> > > > However I do accept that gTLD today importance (and the $ 50.000)
> > > > puts them into a special position, hence the ICANN/GA Membership
> > > > in the Cooperative Model.
> > >
> > >Except there is really no ICANN/GA or @Large per se today.  At least
> > >they have no real power or the current ICANN Board will not allow for
> > >the ICANN/GA - @Large to have any real power on the Board.
> >
> > May be true, may be not that much.
> > 1. I do not know if the BoD is so ill advised as you believe
>
>I don't think they are "Ill advised" but that they are "inappropriately 
>advised",
>big difference.



> > 2. it is its interest if it wants the ICANN to survive this winter time
> > 3. they are for long engaged into that in wanting new TLDs to appear.
>
>This id debatable.  Just look at the events of MDR.  Very few gTLD
>were "Allowed" by this current ICANN Board.

No but it is a first step ahead they cannot stop anymore now. The
first step wias a Director saying to the GAC thet there could be one
million of TLDs.

> > 4. the USG will make pressure on them.
>
>Don't bet on that.  Unless a new administration is in place at the USG
>and the leading members of DOC/NTIA are replaced, very little pressure
>from the USG via DOC/NTIA will be exercised.

We will see, but I think we have to be prepared for the worst
of unexperience people since Becky Burr is gone.

> >> > > > I just
> > > > > > propose the ccTLD because of their other involvements and 
> because they
> > > > > > are the back bone of the ICANN Members (SM and NSM) through the
> > > > > > world.
> > > > >
> > > > >How so?  Most of the possible members of the @large ICANN membership
> > > > >are gTLD DN holders (Stakeholders), not ccTLD registries.
> > > >
> > > > *this* is what is blurring the issue.
> > > > 1. this is changing with multinational domain names
> > >Yes it is.  And it will also change with multinational gTLD's as well.
> > Agreed.  New forms of NICs are emerging: look at the 4 Chinese TLDs.
>
>Exactly my point.



> > > > 2. NICs should be gTLDs registrars as well so we may talk about 
> communities
> > >I think you mean Registries here, not Registrars?
> > No, my English may be poor? I mean the NICs will register TLDs and offer
> > a registrar management service to them if they so desire.
>
>Under the current ICANN practice from just before MDR and during MDR
>gTLD's are selected from those that paid $50k a pop for applying.  That is
>hardly registering anything, Jefsey.

Most of all this is against the bylaws (treat everyine equal, not be a 
registrar,
etc...

> > Let say I register dot.Williams with the NIC of Singapore. I would offer
> > one dollar to the USNIC to register jeff.williams. It would be simpler for
> > me to have the Singapore NIC to organize that with the USNIC and me
> > to pay them an extra buck. I would keep $ 8 and charge you $ 15/year,
> > paying may be $5 a year the Singapore NIC to host my zone server.
>
>This is indeed interesting, but no gTLD's are currently being "Registered by
>ICANN".

No curriously enough. Louis Touton made clear that it was the USG
(acting as a defacto WORLDNIC, what BTW better fits the Cooperative
model that the Corporate one)

> > > > 3. NICs should register local and cultural, etc.. TLDs applications
> > > >      (you cannot have one million of TLDs handled by the ICANN. Karl
> > > >      proposes a lottery to allocate TLDs, I prefer to have 250 
> accredited
> > > >      TLD registries).
> > >
> > >I don't think a limit should be put on what should be "Accredited TLD
> > >Registries".  Nor do our members, nor does Karl.  He only put out the
> > >"250" number as a starting point.
> >
> > You are right. But again keep things under control. ICANN "franchise"
> > starts with 250 shops.There is room for development. One million
> > TLD is 4000 a franchisee, some help may be welcome!
>
>  I am not sure what you are getting at here...  ?????

Let suppose we really target one million TLDs. With 250 ccTLDs able to
register TLDs in the root, it makes 4000 TLDs to sell per NIC. So they
may subfanchise subNICs :-) !!!

I bet they could not sustain the K$ 50 a TLD registrance, too bad !

> > > > > > gTLDs will have already very important powers through the GA.
> > > > >
> > > > >But not good enough and also not represented on the ICANN board.
> > > > >Hence limiting their voice and influence on policy decisions.
> > > >
> > > > I do not think we want an overwhelming importance of the gTLDs.
> > >
> > >We fundamentally disagree here.
> >
> > Yes. You want the gTLDs to rule the world, don't you?
>
>No we [INEGroup] doesn't, nor do I.  We want the stakeholders
>collectively to have the predominant decision making authority
>on major policy decisions.

As long as it is on direct vote basis we are in agreemnt.

> > I want them to be free to develop. I am for free business for all.
> > Including both ccTLDs, gTLDs and local TLDs.
>
>We agree here.

Good..

> > > > ICANN is here to foster competition. The existing competition is
> > > > between ccTLDs and gTLDs (with various variations from .tv to
> > > > CCNIC).
> > >
> > >You forget competition with and between gTLD's as well.
> >
> > Not yet, so I do not know. I stated discussing the first TLD
> > sale within the alt.root. I am not sure that NSI is not going to buy a
> > few TLDs (VeriSign has purchased NSI and the "commercial
> > property" as they say of .com,, .net, .org?
> >
> > > > > > Just remember there may be millions of gTLDs. Anyway the model I
> > > propose
> > > > > > is for one year test bed until the end of the @large study.
> > > > >
> > > > >The @Large study can and is currently being manipulated in 
> directions that
> > > > >are not yet clear, but rapidly evolving.
> > > >
> > > > If you say so... But what is interesting is the outcome of a study 
> which is
> > > > actually a negociation, a preparation, an observation, etc...
> > >
> > >And limited as to participants.  Hardly a negotiation in good faith.
> >
> > Negotiation is never in good faith, Jeff, or you lose. Good faith is what
> > you obtain if the outcome is balanced and good enough to both!
>
>Without good faith negotiations, everybody looses in the end.  So I
>strongly disagree with you viewpoint here towards negotiation practice.

I agree with what you say. What I meant is you must be good faith
(this is a good negotiation trick as the other does not believe it) but
you have to consider the other one is bad faith until you prove him
otherwise. .

Take care and thank you..
Jesey