Re: [ga] Getting Heard by the ICANN Board

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jefsey, Dominik, and all,

  Jefsey got the short and sorted history right.  His conclusions I
have some trouble with.  Well done Jefsey.

JFC Morfin wrote:

>    Dominik,
> what you say about Atlarge and NCUC is true. The problem is that the
> ICANN structure is a no-Member system built in a way everything is
> locked for class membership protection, the same at the IETF where
> RFC 3774 call this the problem of an "affinity group". This developed
> with ICANN itself. They are Roberto Gaetano, Harald Alvestrand, Danny
> Younger as GA Chairs in our area, Vint Cerf and Allesandro Pisanty
> for the Board, Karl Auerbach and Vittorio Berthola for at large,
> Peter Dengate Trush for the ccTLDs, etc. Vint and Harald took also
> care of the IETF relations (Harald chaired it). Same with relations
> with ISOC, the various constituencies (controlled by some well
> identified persons at IPC [Steve Metallitz], BC [Marilyn Cade], NCUC
> [Milton Mueller]) GNSO, ASO, etc. Then they create committees
> together with people they amalgamate to the affinity group) - except
> Karl Auerbach, "the first atlarge" the pariah they respect. They
> maintain odd relations with the size creeping Staff lead by Paul
> Twomey who is a permanent member of the BoD and will stay after Vint
> and Alessandro are gone (unless they change the By-Laws). They
> shelter their relations (and various ties with the USGovernment)
> behind a document logorrhea which permit them to always be more
> complex than their opponents. And if they are not Danny Younger is
> here to create and point out new complexity.
>
> For example I chair the eldest non-profit interested in International
> Network (created in 1978). I am denied its registration to NCUC
> saying that ... it does not exists, because I could conflict with
> Danny Younger there who represents ISOC-NY there, while all the other
> ISOC Chapters ar belonging to the ALAC.
>
> Most of the people involved in this Saga who shared in the WG-Review,
> the IDNO, the icannatlarge, etc. generous efforts are gone after they
> understood there was nothing to do against the ICANN creeping legal
> mollusc, but to replace it. Most dropped the issue and some still
> lurk here (hi! Joop, Sotiris, Dassa, etc.) a very few like me engaged
> into making it, leading to the IGF through the lengthy WSIS process.
>
> Today two visions are opposing in order to upgrade the decentralised
> model we organised in 1978/1884, and which is described in RFC 920
> and 1591 of Jon Postel and ICANN ICP-1 document. This follows the
> revision process engaged by Stuart Lynn (the President before Paul
> Twomey) to correct the over centralisation initiated by the first
> President (Michael Roberts).
>
> ( 1) there is an US/ICANN focalisation where the IANA becomes the
> reference for the on-line systems, and progressively for the world
> through the US Internet leadership. This option as been agreed in
> Tunis, subject to the practical limitations imposed in RFC 4646 which
> creates the IANA registry to be used to organise it. Most of the
> ICANNeers adhere to that vision as it insures the survival of ICANN
> and its support by the Internet US mammoths gathered in the Unicode
> consortium which wrote RFC 4646.
>
> (2) the natural technical evolution of the Internet usage that the
> Internet technology can less and less support with important address,
> routing, language issues and user centric autonomies. This leaves us
> with two options (a) a multinational or (b) InterNAT network, and
> most probable (a) _and_ (b) single future. Both means that ICANN is
> going to become the US Internet International Agency managing the
> domestic and international extension of the US Internet.
>
> This means that stabilisation will come the day we can merge the US
> centralisation into the global multilateralisation in a way truly
> acceptable to all. This calls for the US side to address the current
> destabilisation by the demands of Google pople who want too much
> control over the IANA RFC 4646 registry. This way they expose the
> IETF inability to manage that registry proprely (over a few
> registration failures). Another destabiisation is the inability of
> ICANN/IETF/IANA to understand the problems involved in the
> Multilingual Internet, spam, and IPv6 and to solve them. This in
> particular results from the disinterest of the IETF in the ICP-3
> ICANN document calling for an IETF experimentation of the Internet
> evolution, in liasing with ccTLD, and in pariticipating to the WSIS
> and IGF, a general lack of architectural (common) vision by IAB,
> IRTF, ITU, NSF and a priority put on the survival of the DN Industry
> which needs to be, and will be under the user/technologu pressure,
> completely revised to fee the user's needs, rather than the
> cybesquatters ones.
>
> jfc
>
> At 13:25 18/12/2006, Dominica Filipp wrote:
>
> >I've realized that I'm still lacking some information about the
> internal
> >processes at ICANN.
> >
> >We have several constituencies of which at least two should be
> >representing the registrant interests - NCU and (non-voting)
> At-Large. I
> >don't know what the connection of the constituences to the board
> members
> >(who are eligible to make final decisions by voting) is like. If, for
>
> >instance, the info/org/biz agreement was approved unanimously, does
> it
> >mean that NCU (as a voting constituency) voted for the agreement and
> >thus failed in approaching the registrant interests?
> >
> >What is the GNSO (which list we're subscribed to) role in all that?
> Can
> >I find anything like organizational tree chart on the ICANN page?
> >
> >Maybe a bit dumb questions out here... but I'd like to get to know...
>
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >Dominik
>
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827