Re: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 05:03 01/12/01, Mike Roberts said:
>The GA has the opportunity to contribute to that process and it ought to 
>use it.

Dear Mike,
The DNSO is to address DNS issues. The Jennings proposition made it - if I 
am correct from historic hearsays and Joe Sims testimony - a temporary, 
inadequate and confusing host of the @large concerns. From what I gathered 
the idea was that the ALSC could correct the Jenning confusion while trying 
to address the worries Joe Sims testified and the DNSO solution according 
to him - and I fully agree - was not addressing.

You sent a letter last year aksing for a review of your ALSC proposition. 
Then the WG-Review was the opportunity for a parallel work from inside the 
DNSO and from a general ICANN perspective to commonly understand the issues 
at stake, to agree upon solutions and to get them implemented in good 
cooperation. This is what the initial kernel wanted and was denied by 
Philip and Theresa. I do not recall that YJ and Karl got any support.

As france@large - i.e. a small kernel of concerned people (still "ICANN 
active" former French @large candidates wishing to be a focal point and a 
servant catalist for the French @large community) - we responded you in 
presenting the most constructed and important contribution. Still online at 
http://icann-fra. I have ever since supported these propositions and we 
adapted them to the changes in the ICANN reality including during my BoD 
campaign.

You akcnowledged all the other contributions, but not ours. We have been 
pleased in seeing that these propositions are extremely similar to the 
recent response of China and VietNam and are most common among ccTLDs. We 
are interested in seeing that progressively many are using the same 
concepts (several being shared with other @large groups borned from Thomas 
Roassler's icann-europe ML and response). But we recently learned that 
strangely enough the ALSC Members  had not received from you the copy of 
our response.

The thinking since last year has developped, at france@large as at the GA 
and within the @large community, in spite of the lack of an @large site and 
information by the ICANN.

Based upon that experience, do you really think worth this GA to say and 
add the same things again and again to what we said one year ago, to what 
several ccTLDs have expressed, to what the international Internet community 
is saying... that legitimacy in the governance comes from the users, that 
ICANN is to be a common interest center, that the BoD must be the boss of 
the Staff, that the direct and indirect Director selections must be equal 
if we want stability (9+9+1), that the the true Members of the ICANN are 
the local internet communities, that security and stability for the 
Internet users cannot not come from a single government agency, that the 
ICANN money and budget policy are inadequate, that true @large members are 
those interested in the Internet governance all the year long, that no one 
is fooled by the attempts to capture the @large seats - and certainly not 
by the US gTLD interests..., that the ICANN must be equal to all, that the 
ICANN must behave transparently, that ICANN must call on acknowledged 
competences and not on poor policy choices, that consensus authentification 
mechanisms as defined by the bylaws should be respected, that ICANN should 
contain itself to its strict mission...

I would personally add to develop an internal "mani pulite" effort and to 
become conscious how its decisions and denial are impacting the world's 
lingual, fnancial and digital divides and slowdowning the technological 
development and the world stability and peace.

You do not want to listen. You acted against it. You name these positions 
"wild".
This is your right. But your influence and the one of your friends is still 
important enough to be sure that your position will be of weight.

If you truely want this GA position to be studied instead of being denied 
by the ALSC, you certainly know how doing it: we cannot.

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