Re: [ALSC-Forum] gTLD Registry Constituency response to draft Board resolution

[Jefsey Morfin]

At 15:05 01/11/01, Esther Dyson wrote:
>We had a fairly specific charter, and to some extent we already went 
>beyond it. We were not trying to remodel the entire world, just the part 
>of it we were assigned to.  God built the world in seven days, not 
>one!  (smile)
>Esther

Dear Esther,
the mission was clean shirt study plus some specifications with possible 
propositions to change the bylaws. So I think you were perfectly entitled 
to rebuild the ICANN (and you do it in killing the ballance in the board 
repartition).

What most disagree is that you want also to rebuild the world (even if it 
is only the last day :-) ) in changing the nature of the @large. And 
"betraying" your own positions about 9/9/1. We already have seen the ICANN 
changing of nature in the past years from a IANA registry keeper to a 
complex structure of undefined use.

I now certainly oppose this @large change of nature: I chair an @large 
association and my articles do not fit your definition. Mainly because an 
irreallisticly defined group of people for an surrealist organization may 
cost a lot of money but will probably not fly very far.

God created the man with a purpose. If the @large are just to ellect every 
two years 6 or 9 Directors of a controverted non-profit no member small 
Californian corporation managing 3 pages in an Excel folders by then 
probably a side of  70% of the world ....

What we need is a vision of the governance, with a clear and motivating 
role to the participants matching their expectations and competences. This 
inludes ISOC, IEFT, W3C, ICANN, ccTLDs, @large... Then you may review the 
relations and missions and work out details.  @large are not only to be 
given a proper definition, they also must be given a role.

As you know france@large has fully documented ( http://icann-fra.org ) one 
year ago a position, no so far from the Chinese and the Vitenamese 
proposition. The IALNA emerging position will certainly be that approach. 
For a 365/24 @large participation in the Internet governance, including the 
ICANN.

Jefsey

>At 02:43 AM 11/1/2001, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>At 18:42 31/10/01 -0500, Crawford, Susan wrote:
>>>The gTLD RC does not agree, however, that the recommendations of the 
>>>ALSC should be acted upon by the ICANN Board independently from 
>>>resolution of many other pending issues regarding restructuring, 
>>>including the ccTLD request for creation of a new Supporting 
>>>Organization, the need to preserve a level playing field for competition 
>>>among registries addressing the global marketplace, suggestions for 
>>>restructuring of the GA and DNSO, and proposals for adoption of more 
>>>definitive guidelines limiting the permissible subject matters for ICANN 
>>>policymaking and establishing the consensus policy process leading to 
>>>and legitimizing such policies.  All of these efforts must be 
>>>coordinated and should not proceed independently.
>>
>>Bravo Suzan and David. The restructuring of the DNSO is a key point that 
>>needs to be considered together with the ALSC recommendations.
>>
>>It was very disappointing to see how non-committal (evasive?)  the ALSC 
>>members were on this point during the Montevideo consultations.
>>
>>
>>
>>--Joop
>
>
>
>Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
>edyson@edventure.com
>1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.com
>
>High-Tech Forum in Europe: canceled this year (details on Website)
>PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona