Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

[jefsey <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 18:55 24/05/02, Joe Sims said:
>I do note that Bret's suggested revisions to the mission statement and 
>bylaws are fairly limited, and if
>you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have 
>an honest difference of opinion, very limited.

The needed changes in the bylaws are extremely limited as long as you do 
not follow Stuart's line. They can make the ICANN usefull as long as you 
forget about the contact policy and foster equal competition.

You need to add Members as Brett did. I have some problems in accepting 
them to be @large. I would favor them to be NICs (National Internet 
Communities) to stabilize the ICANN as an international body. They would 
not elect people to the BoD directly but vote the budget (they are all the 
one who pay, the @large are only among those who pay).

You should keep the @large as they were in the by-laws, except that they 
should be filtered in a way or another through their initial participation 
to avoid capture.The @large should only organize as they currently develop 
under Denise. There is no need for them to be controlled by the ICANN. 
Every commercial (Registry, Registrars, national issues like the UDRP, 
etc.)  issue should go to the @large. They form "the Internet campus".

Most of all the Constituencies should be free to form and join whatever SO 
they want. I do not see the need of a particular ccTLD SO, but a need for 
the ccTLDs to share in every SO. Each SO should have a GA.

The disagreement I have with Brett is the 6 @large, as I think that 
stability of the BoD comes form direct (@large) and indirect (SO) selection 
to have the broadest competence and concerns selection and to avoid 
factions. I think it is common sense from millenniums of constitutional 
experience.

>The ccSO issue is complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of 
>the cc relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the 
>right to elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy 
>decisions they refused to recognize as having any effect on them.

This is the result of the BoD policy and a disagreement they will resolve 
themselves in being within the ICANN/GA. There is no need for a contract if 
there is membership.

You want to protect the interest of the ICANN against the ccTLDs. They want 
to protect their interest against you. Why not to protect your interests 
together? Is this so important to have a no member institution?

>With respect to the other suggested changes, they are all within the realm 
>of reasonable argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the 
>Board retreat. Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for 
>the inevitable conspiracy theories to follow,

Let not be paranoid Joe. This has been explained and re-explained by many 
of us here. There is a general rough consensus. The one who refused it ... 
was you. The one who broke it was Stuart.

Now if you want to discuss, perfect.

But you will not make that Stuart is somewhere right. That he called on the 
Govs and that his call rose a lot of Gov thinking. So what Brett, so what 
I, so what others may propose is now to be considered in the light of that 
Gov thinking, of the need to reform non only the ICANN, but the gouvernance 
and to permit the Internet to adapt to innovation.

But you will not make that, with an ICANN in poor or in good standing, you 
will still have to match the real world challenge. This means that we need 
the ITU as much as they need us. And we fall back into the global strategy:

- concerted relations with Telcos (or ITU) at SO level, SO by SO on  peer 
to peer basis.
- global administration of the namespace with every stakeholder; parallel 
roots for security and national sovereignty; servicing of the self rooted 
user systems, etc..
- organization of the "mission creep" (@large) in a way which permits it to 
develop without affecting the ICANN

But you will not make that we voted that the USG is to make a rebid. To 
change the BoD and to confirm his agreement with the above or that they 
disengage.


Again, the ICANN is not badly designed, just too rigid, quite complex for a 
three page Ex ell folder. But if you can fund it (not with my money) ... 
your show.  Just one thing: keep it out of the DNS root server business. It 
works well for 18 years without the ICANN... thank you!
jfc
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02