Re: [ga] Karl's latest

["Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wz-berlin.de>]

On 9 Jul 2002 at 13:19, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:32:42 +0200, you wrote:
> 
> >Exactly this is at least my reason for voting in favour of the 
> >blueprint as at least a less-worse solution then strong governmental
> >involvement would be.
> 
> I share your opinions, 

I don't. 

and I think this - and the difference between your
> views and Karl's ones - is a clear example of the major choice we have in
> front of us now.

What major choice? Does a rejection of the blueprint proposal imply 
necessarily a leaving of ICANN? Or does it imply a support for a stronger 
involvement of governments?

Other constituencies or supporting organizations have been quite critical with 
regard to the blueprint paper. Take the RIRs as example. Do they support the 
gist of the blueprint proposal? Certainly not. Does that mean they want to the 
US or any other government to replace ICANN? Definitely not. 

The existence of worse alternatives seems not good enough as a reason to 
accept and support the ideas of the blueprint paper. 

jeanette


 The GA has split on this issue, icannatlarge.com has split
> on this issue, and we don't have an agreed answer for now.
> 
> Personally, I think that leaving ICANN now (or stopping to cooperate in any
> form with the Reform process) would be a huge risk. I prefer to be inside
> the organization, work to get as much as possible from it, even if it's not
> enough, while trying to gain support for our cause outside of it. But I
> think it is very unlikely that a direct intervention of the US Goverment
> could help our cause and restore the At Large as it was. Possibly, it would
> simply start the First Internet World War with the rest of the world's
> governments.
> 
> I think that everyone of us should think carefully at this question and
> choose a position. For what regards icannatlarge.com, it is very likely that
> the upcoming elections will determine which way the organization will go -
> or perhaps, the fact that the organization is unable to agree on which way
> to go and so to proceed. (Sad but true.) 
> 
> However, I think that a compromise is possible, if at least we start to
> understand and to respect each other. Personally, I was a little
> disappointed when being called a traitor by some people, only because I
> bothered to fly to Bucharest on my own money and speak with the Reform
> Committee. So I think that we should at least agree on the fact that those
> who try to get the most from the Reform process, even if it implies
> supporting compromises that are not satisfying, are not doing so with bad
> intent.
> -- 
> .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
> Vittorio Bertola     <vb@vitaminic.net>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
> Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
> 
> DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
> addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
> Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
> immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
> --
> 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