Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Danny,
I think that the GA should not support anything concerning the ALSO. The 
reason why is that the ALSO is only a vote capture against the DNSO/GA 
Members. This comes from the figures.

1. the Internet Participants who feel concerned by the governance on a day 
to day basis are
a) informed (or they would not be really concerned)
b) on the DNSO/GA list and a few others like the ALSC, the gTLD, the IDNO, 
the TLDA, icann-europe.

So we may evaluate the year long @large to less than 2000. These people 
have aggregated from the White Paper days to the last DNSO election through 
the @large election. This means that out of 200.000 people who were proud 
sometimes to tell their friends "I am involved in the governance", only a 
few 2000 have survived and may be 200 are really active. Most of them are 
feared to be either anti-ICANN, anti-ICP-3 or to support some "wild" 
agenda. Because they know and remain. In spite of being told the ICANN is 
not important (what is true, but not acted as such) : this show they have 
an agenda, or are puzzled dedicated honest people.

2. this means that BoD Members are actually supported by a few scores of 
active persons for the SO originated Directors, by JDRP for Stuart and by 
nearly 1800 for Karl and Andy. The 400 or so active people at the ccTLDs 
are a big threat in number. gTLDs are only a few people: Chuck is alone and 
Jeff Neuwell is participating alone too. BC is 50 people and many are on 
the GA too. Now the Registrars are a real force, but how many are active 
and motivated: 300? This means that the real ICANN community is probably 
around 3000 people. The official "ICANN Community" - ie. people supporting 
ICP-3 for stability sake - is probably less than 1000 people and may be the 
ICP-3 worshipers (really "committed") less than 500. Please just consider 
the endorsements for the DNSO BoD election, I lead by 25% with ... 40+ 
endorsements :-) !!! ... and I permitted Abril i Abril to be re-elected 
(the worst one next to Andy and Karl) against an establishment candidate.

3. They contained our 2/3 non organized majority through the GA. Now they 
want to kill us. The idea is simple. 150.000 or more are dangerous and too 
costly to ... control. So they target 30.000 people they will select 
("outreach") through the gTLD/Registrar customers (they already started 
"selecting" sending a letter to "selected" organizations - oddly enough 
france@large [probably the only incorporated only and specifically @large 
organization] was not on the list, no more than the ... alsc-mailing list 
itself).

In having only gTLD registrants
- no wild ccTLD supporters and foreign ISP/Resellers
- registrars are under ICANN contract with a good US basis - they 
understand "business"

BTW they use the "capture" threat. If capture could exist, it would start 
with constituencies, much easier to capture than @large and with the NC. 
This would mean that the BoD has been captured (Who could think that ????)

They know that these one-voting-day @large people will be motivated one 
shot and ignorant of the issues, so they will vote statu-quo, overwhelming 
us (they even convinced Karl not to have an @large mailing list from what 
he wrote yesterday (?).

They will then use them against us, in making these one-day-voters 
permanent members, with an international organization to make sure they 
look legitimate (however none will come from the ccTLDs!!!). As if 12 
people defeated 10 months ago were really motivated to work together :-) 
... I know that, since france@large originated that way. We certainly enjoy 
meeting, but working, proposing, voting ... may be some day...

So that International organization will mostly serve as an alibi for 
traveling, foreign meetings, hotel expenses and local photos with the 
various @large sub-directors (at least these guys will get a free diner). 
But from then on whatever Danny, Thomas, Roberto, WXW, Jeff, Kristy may 
propose they will be responded "have you at least a 10% support among the 
30.000 Members".

The last risk they run is that a few from those who know (GA) become @large 
leaders and succeed in having one or two of them elected/reelected, or 
elected through an SO. Karl shown there was a risk even in such a well 
prepared operation. And silent Andy got also elected.

1) they limit the risks in having only 6 Directors (we still do not know 
who will be the non continued BoDsquatter) . 6 permits also to make 2 
@large Directors a clear minority or no majority among @large Directors 
should another Director occasionnaly support them.

2) the ALSO will share in the DNSO/NC - so the GA may be opposed the ALSO

3) just in case one of the people who know could get into the NC though the 
ALSO, the ALSO reps may be questioned their votes at the NC (?). Also they 
make the IDNH project an obsolete one. There is no need anaymore for a 
Registrants Constituency.

4) because the ALSO will share in the DNSO, the ALSO has no reason to 
support positions by its own.

5) when you consider it, there is no real need to unbalance the ICANN with 
the ALSO and since Jefsey & co were against the ALSO why not to agree and 
to have the ALSO melt with the GA? This way the ccTLD should stay in the 
DNSO since their national @large structure is a DNSO member.

6) however such an agreement will only be confirmed if the ccTLDs sign 
their contract. If not the ALSO organization will vote a motion that ccTLDs 
do it under the popular pressure of "30.000 users". The NC will back them 
and ask the GAC to move. Staff will resend Mike Roberts letter to the 
Governments. The BoD will compromise if the ccTLD do sign and will go to 
the DoC saying that they need support to get international cooperation and 
need to continue being protected by the USG (against anti-trust concerns).

That is ... for this election and may be 2004. As in 2005 VGRS will divest 
.net to MS before being  purchased by MS as part of their Pay.Net service 
based upon Passport data and Verisign certificates.

Jefsey

On 10:11 11/02/02, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
>In a message posted to the IDNO list David Farrar writes:  "There is no way
>at all any individuals constituency would be able to raise funds to match
>what the business groups pay.  If there is ever an individual's constituency
>the DNSO will have to recognise that individuals pay most of their money
>through the registrars, ISPs and registries.  This is one reason I think the
>possibility of having the ALSO perform a dual role as an individuals
>constituency within the DNSO has merit.  It will possibly avoid serious
>duplication of expenses."
>
>The latest recommendation from the IPC to the NC Structure Task Force Policy
>stipulates that ALSO input to the Board is only to be channeled by way of the
>DNSO (in which the ALM would have a mere three votes in a 24-member council),
>and further, "no policy recommendations would come from the ALSO separately".
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00086.html
>
>This proposition is a blatant attempt to attack the At-Large and should not
>be supported by the GA's representative.
>
>--
>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

--
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