[ga] Re: Questions for the Candidates

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Thank you Danny,
I thank you not to ask all the good questions I rose, so I may betetr detail.

On 02:54 08/08/01, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
>Dear Board candidates,
>The General Assembly has thus far raised the following questions:



>1.  Will you actively support Karl Auerbach's motion on the creation of an
>Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO?

I sent a few hours ago a mail to propose considering the Internet User 
Constituency constitution process as per the bylaws.  I supprot the 
creation of two Registrant Constituency (bulk and individuals as heir 
registration procedures and problems differs). I call for a DNS 
Developpement Constitency to study and specify the DNS évolution and to 
analyse and document their impact on the market.


>2.  What are the strong and weak points of the DNSO structure as it is and
>how would you set about improving it?

The DNSO is weak from the Singapore compromise (Dennis Jennings 
proposition) to include the @large withing a technical SO. The WG-R had 
identified this. ALSC is identifiying it too.

@large oriented constituencies should move to the @large organization. The 
DNSO should include the gTLDs, the ccTLDs, the STLDs, the Registrars, the 
Registrants, the DNSDeveloppers and a DNS oriented commitee from the 
Internet User Constituency.


>3.  What is your view on ICANN At Large participation -- do you support an
>election of the full number of At Large directors?

IMHO the current repartition is aceptable: 5 geographical representatives 
elected by the @large Members and 4 representing professionnal concerns. I 
hate that 4 are BoDsquatters and 5 are not supposed to stay until replaced.

I think the number of @large Constituencies should enlarge to include: 
SMEs, content providers, Telcos, etc... I am interested by the scheme where 
all the Directors are elected by the @large. The nomination mechanism 
should obvsiously take care of the necessary divesity.

We have an @large Study Committtee. We wanted the WG-R to be its counter 
part. Now the WG-R  starts anew. Let them work. I will support a solution 
not imposed on us which will clearly make a difference between the 
"netwide" consensus based advices of the DNSO on DNS issues and the 
stakeholders voted motions of the @large on the same matter. One says what 
we can do, the other say what we would like to do.


>4.  To what extent would you seek to ensure that the "open," "bottom-up" mode
>of operation of ICANN, in which the participation of the General Assembly in
>forming recommendations and suggestions to the Board of Directors is a part,
>and which mode is set out in the Articles that govern ICANN and in the
>agreement with the USG, would be honored and implemented?

The subject is complex because it calls for a complete analysis of the new 
social behaviors of which the Internet are both a mirror and an agent. I am 
sorry but I need to explain this first.

"bottom-up/top-down" schemes are XIXth century heritage based upon the 
hierarchical social dialog. For many decades a new form of relations I name 
"me/we" is emerging and based upon a relational polylog. You cannot deal 
with something like the Internet without being influenced by it, so the 
"me/we" model is more present to us than to others but it is all over the 
world. Our problem is that through e-mail we mostly live in a me/we 
multi-dimension world while many still want to use two dimensions concepts.

Governance is me/we. It is not a "World Governement" but one the relations 
between the individual and his missions, interests, etc.. and his multiple 
communities.
Global is all what is the three first parts of the "mine/me/we/alien" basic 
sequence.
Politically correct is me/we (not top-down or bottom-up: it would be 
oppression).
Consensus is a me/we word reflecting the correct thinking of the community.
Deciding is what makes you, knowing you is what makes your community (think 
about "authoritaive" in the DNS and you better understand many things)

No one has yet analysed governance mecanisms (Europe is just starting an 
international effort on that). I am pragamatic. So I would go "Estonian". 
This people have developped an online information discussion and decision 
system for their Governement meeting. They open it progessively to 
every  citizen - in real time. And they will use it in cities, 
administrations, etc...

We see that Staff and BoD do not comply with the bylaws. They oftern change 
the rules as it pleases them. Their decsion process is not transparent. Is 
that they want to cheat? Are we able to force them?
Most of the time of this GA is wasted in rules discussion. Most of the 
people do not understand half what they discuss about. No one remember a 
cute suggestion made 10 days before. No motion is voted, no consensus is 
uncovered. Is that serious? Does that means that we are not serious?

Response is "no" to all these questions. It means we need another system of 
relations to decide, debate and educate. Adapted to our 'me/we system based 
on our me/we e-mail practice.Vint is on this GA and any one can copy 
everyone. What we need is to understand how we realy work, tanslate it into 
acceptable software specifications and develop it. This is our priority.

No one is going to tell a software system not to be transparent, to bypass 
a rule or to be impressed by ad hominem disputes.

Jefsey

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