[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed

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

Micheal and all stakeholders of interested parties,

Micheal Sherrill wrote:

> Hello Jeff:
>
> My primal reaction to your statement of {Internet Holocaust} is yes.  This has happened before.  However, I come from the {old school} that says {screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me!}.  We will, ultimately, only have ourselves to blame if we do not see what permission we have allocated to others to administer our lives and blindly followed, without questioning their authority, thereafter.

  In part, yes.  But remember it is the ICANN BOD and staff that under contract
were task with forming an At-Large where any and all stakeholders or interested
parties may become members on an equal status/level.  They succeeded to
some degree, than after the first troubled At-Large Election, they shut it
down.  The members had NOTHING t do with that action, nor did
all of the At-Large elected directors get seated.

>
>
> So, I must ask, what is going on within ICANN?  They have our money and our mailing list and the ear of most of the press {read governments}.  They have usurped the constitutional authority of this organization (ICANN) and answer to no one but themselves.  When they are as quiet as they are (and have been) it makes me very, very nervous.

  Good question.  I am not sure what they are doing.  But their very recent
abrupt silence on the various forums isn't all that unusual and does not
bother me all that much.  I can track them without a problem when I think
it is necessary.

>
>
> Beware of the silent jackal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Micheal Sherrill
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> Date:  Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:58:04 -0800
>
> Micheal and all stakeholders or interested parties,
>
>   Kind of like a "Internet Holocaust"?
>
> Micheal Sherrill wrote:
>
> > This is a consensus with which I would abide.  We have to start somewhere as long as it does not parallel the abyss that was dug by ICANN.  We must learn from ICANN (at least what not to do) and go forward.  Start here, start now.  And pay maximum attention to all those we appoint as our representatives.  Leave nothing to chance.  Without this resolve we have only ourselves to blame if we let it happen again.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Micheal Sherrill
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> > From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> > Date:  Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:46:57 +0100
> >
> > Vint Cerf: Jefsey, Talleyrand was right - when things are complex and
> > tense, it is the time to
> > move carefully.
> >
> > Alejandro: Jefsey, let me enter this fray. I take what seems to me your
> > main point serious, well-thought position papers that address the issues
> > and make concrete, workable, integral proposals. Try to avoid half-baked
> > ideas and generalized lamentations about the present situation or about the
> > past. That is what we need. Concentrate the efforts on them.
> >
> > Charles Shaban: Dear Jefsey and IPC members, I have to disagree with you, I
> > think ICANN mission is more than the IANA, IANA functions is only parts of
> > the ICANN functions. But you are correct that ICANN should define its
> > functions from the beginning and stick to them. (Charles: I agree with you.
> > It depends on what you name ICANN).
> >
> > David Harnand: Alejandro and others, We at New.net absolutely agree with
> > you that what is needed are "concrete, workable, integral proposals" to
> > solve the current problems with DNS governance.
> >
> > Bruce Young: Jefsey, If I assume your intent here is to work on separate
> > point papers outside of
> > the At Large proper, I have no problem with that. In fact I for one welcome
> > as many parallel efforts as possible, as long as they don't overshadow or
> > attempt to replace our At Large efforts.
> >
> > Dear all,
> > from this I see that we need five consensuses and that we already have got
> > two of them. I suggest we proceed in order.
> >
> > 1. first consensus (thanks to Lynn): we all agree now that the present
> > ICANN cannot fulfill its missions, whatever they are.
> >
> > 2. second consensus: we all agree that the propositions of Lynn are not
> > workable as such and that we need to work on them.
> >
> > 3. third (needed) consensus: we need to agree on our target. I propose it
> > is "a consensus on the ICANN missions and organization". With the two
> > consensuses above anything below that (even a BoD vote on a BoD committee
> > proposition) will not be accepted in real life. The key is "consensus" not
> > the proposition in itself.
> >
> > 4. forth (needed) consensus: we need to agree on a consensus among who and
> > how. We need a lasting consensus, so we need *every* positions to be
> > associated to it.
> >
> > It has to be an Internet Community Pact.
> >
> > This is why I suggest three things.
> >
> > - a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and
> > feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which satisfy
> > *every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as "we are the
> > ICANN" as Mike Roberts truly said.
> >
> > - to call on the largest basis of serious and professional people. In
> > protecting ourselves against any capture and disrupters. I therefore called
> > on Vint as a Chair and to all the currently identified stakeholders through
> > any existing gouvernance oriented list. It is NOT to select lists/positions
> > but to be sure people have shown they are concerned and who they physically
> > are. At lowest cost.
> >
> > - to use a working method which can lead to a consensus even if only one
> > single person has initially hat the final proposition. This method consists
> > in a site where every positions can be linked and polled upon. This is the
> > only way to build, confront and reduce into a single consensus serious yet
> > opposed propositions. Polls are to help (as are the debates) but are *no*
> > votes. What is important is the change in the polls. These changes will
> > help progressive, step by step debates and agreements. The real "votes" are
> > by the position writers: in writing eventually a common document. There
> > must be no loser. This has to be a win/win situation for all.
> >
> > 5. ultimate (needed) consensus: what are the ICANN mission, organization
> > and operations. And how to implement it as a consensus.
> >
> > We therefore need three consensus more. A consensus is to discover what we
> > *already* agree upon, should some conditions be met. Once the consensus is
> > uncovered, the decisions are about how to meet that conditions. So please
> > let proceed step by step.
> >
> > 1. consensus number three (now): do we agree that to reach a stable
> > situation we need a global consensus involving  all the stake holding
> > positions? That it has to be worked out in a consensual manner? that such a
> > consensus will be a part of the solution?
> >
> > 2. consensus number four (after three is uncovered): do we agree that we
> > want to work in an orderly and professional manner? step by step from clean
> > sheet? with the largest number at hand of genuinely concerned even if
> > opposing people, while preventing any risk of capture and of disruption?
> > using a method permitting the clear presentation of the different positions
> > and their reduction into a common agreement? that such an agreement will
> > most probably depend on actions we will have to discuss, to agree upon and
> > to undertake? and not to be at anyone's expense?
> >
> > 3. Ultimate consensus (not to be discussed now): I do believe it does exist
> > (otherwise why to give it a try). I could document my vision, as others
> > could also do with their own today vision. We "just" have to adjust our
> > visions.
> >
> > I think it can bring a far greater stability and security for all of us, at
> > a drastically reduced cost, with a much broader scope of concerns than
> > "mission creep" and a much larger involvement of absentees, in fostering
> > innovation and in respecting cultures and national interests while
> > permitting large and small operators and entrepreneurs to develop. It will
> > also permit very large steps ahead in term of network architecture, social
> > acceptance and economy development.
> >
> > This is when we are in the dark that we have to hope for the light. IMO, in
> > this case it is not to hope, just to work it out. But since we only are
> > human, it may be complex!
> >
> > Jefsey
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html