Re: [ALSC-Forum] OPEN LETTER TO ICANN AND ALSC

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Toshimaru Ogura,
The position you express seems to be not so distant from the positions 
expressed by the CNNIC and the VNNIC. Their positions are very near from 
those I expressed during my BoD campaign about @large/ccTLDs and we 
expressed end of 2000 in the france@large response requested by Mike 
Roberts (still on-line at http://icann-fra.org  ). These are totally 
consistent withe ccTLD proposed Best Practices.

These positions seem also more consistent with the positions expressed by 
Karl Auerbach and Andy Mueller Maghun than with those of the ALSC.

What is worrying is that these two Directors have been elected one year ago 
and that the ALSC has not brought any element to demonstrate that their 
voters changed their mind. So we may only conclude that the pretence to a 
Global Internet Community consensus is only that: a pretence.

The question is why. When people like Carld Bild, Esther Dyson etc... seat 
together and publish what are obvious lies, this only may be by ignorance, 
by influence or for a purpose.

Ignorance has certainly been organized or accepted. Several precise 
examples - like yours - show that the Members did not do their own home 
work. So influence by over present yet not responding Joe Sims and by Staff 
is certain. The responses of Stuart Lynn on decisions being only delayed by 
a month or so and appeals from Carl Bild not to over delay will probably 
lead to the usual "long term prepared emergency situation" where Staff will 
propose BoD to vote what Joe prepared. So yes they are under influence.

But I feel there is also a purpose. It is very unlikely that they never 
heard of the USG MoU, of the former version of the bylaws, of the general 
protest about the 666 repartition vs the 99. Apart from being apocalyptic 
that figures might represent the result of a negotiation consensus, not 
with the Internet Community but within the so-called "ICANN Community".

To understand my point one has to consider the BoD current 
distribution.  There are 5 elected @large with a term in 2002 and 4 
squatters. In December there will be 6 elected @large and 3 remaining 
squatters - no one ever mentioned how they could be changed! So now the 
Squatters will be the embryo of the "developers".

Now let look at the @large ALSC definition. An @large is and only is a 
customer of an US gTLD connected though a (in most of the cases US) 
Registrar. No risk of national capture: all of them are already subject to 
"information" from US Registries/Registrars. We, you will have not the 
names of the @large voters so to respect their privacy. But Registrars will 
inform them freely -one also has to collect their money. This means that 
the ALSO will actually be the gTLDSO called by the gTLDs as a compensation 
for the ccTLDSO. With a DNSO having no more consistency than the ALSO and 
PSO. BTW ccTLD will get .... 0 seat since gTLD will theoretically get none. 
Bravo!

Should we have 99 it would mean that gTLD would get the majority in 
counting the Plan B Staff/Verisign alliance. So they bargained and the 
Squatters are supposed now to protect ICANN from being a Verisign 
affiliate. They also clarified the 3LD case for ".name" to be a major 
element (may be will they offer the @large membership free?). It will be 
6+1 for the Staff/Verisign alliance against 3 Squatters and 9 SOs.

Hans Kraijenbrink being the last protector of people vs B2B (Big Business 
and Brother)... it is an interesting concept.

Jefsey
france@large


On 09:45 12/11/01, toshimaru ogura said:

>OPEN LETTER TO ICANN AND ALSC
>
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>Marina del Rey CA 90292-6601
>
>Dear At Large Study Committee and ICANN board members,
>
>Your organization recently issued a Final Report on ICANN At-Large
>Membership. When I read the report, I was very astonished to find that
>it
>quoted me in a way that completely ignored my actual opinions. Instead,
>the
>document used my comments to justify various voting restrictions. I am
>writing to tell you that I find this to be really unfair.
>
>The portion of the report that particularly concerns me reads as
>follows:
>
>"The ALSC is concerned by some evidence that the very low entrance
>barrier
>in last year's At-Large election may have resulted in a large enrollment
>of
>people who were not actively interested in ICANN, but who enrolled only
>because it was easy, or who were 'encouraged' to do so simply because of
>nationalistic competition.
>
>"For example, Toshimaru Ogura, author of 'Japanese Experience about
>ICANN
>Election Campaign,' states, 'It was clear they disregarded the intent of
>ICANN's election, and that JIF [Japan Internet Forum] was set-up at the
>direction of MPT [Ministry of Postal and Telecommunications] to get a
>Japan
>(not Asia) Board Member. Private sector was involved in the JIF at the
>direction of the MPT. The private sector and the government are not
>separate
>in Japan; only excluding government is not enough. Several ISP's in
>Japan
>developed a campaign for ICANN elections. A special web page was created
>to
>promote Japanese votes. Several companies directed their employees to
>register. For example, according to an internal document from Hitachi
>Corp.,
>it was assigned to produce 1500 registrations, and management assigned
>three
>registrations for each office and section, and required a registration
>report to meet quota.'
>
>"Domain name ownership, cost and verification, and membership fees may
>help
>deter problems such as nationalistic competition and involvement of
>disinterested individuals, as well as the establishment of election
>rules
>and consequences for breaking the rules."
>
>In fact, I am against further voting restrictions. But because of the
>way my
>comments were cited, your report may deceive people who do not know my
>background regarding ICANN At Large issues.
>
>More specifically, in my view, ICANN should not place any further
>restrictions on its terms of membership, even if, during the last
>election,
>the Japanese government mobilized people who had little interest in the
>ICANN process. Rather, I propose that ICANN should resolve the issues
>posed
>by such top down election campaigning and do a better job educating
>Internet
>users. Also I strongly insist that global democracy is necessary for
>Internet governance and that all users should have the right to
>participate
>in this decision making process.
>
>Unfortunately, ICANN and the ALSC have ignored these ideas and used only
>the
>portion of my comments that are in their favor.
>
>So I would like you to answer the following questions.
>
>1. Why did you cite my arguments without mentioning my main contentions?
>
>2. What do you think about my assertion that more participatory
>processes
>(based on global democracy ideals) are necessary for the ICANN At Large
>membership structure? I am sending my formal suggestions to you once
>more
>(as an appendix to this letter). If you want to quote me, you should at
>least critique my ideas and explain why your more restrictive proposal
>is
>legitimate.
>
>3. I fear that the people who read the portion of the ALSC report that
>quotes me may misinterpret my views. Therefore I fear other civil
>society
>groups may lose confidence in me. What do you think about this?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Toshimaru Ogura
>NaST (NCDNHC member organization)
>JCA-Net Board member (Japan)
>ogr@nsknet.or.jp
>
>=========================
>APPENDIX
>Excerpt from Report for At Large Study Committee Outreach Meeting
>Originally submitted June 5, 2001
>http://marux.org/~ogura/ogura_report20010605.html
>
>3 How to avoid top-down/nationalistic election campaign?
>3-1 Enough information
>I think that given the enough information, most of the above issues will
>be
>disappeared. Therefore ICANN should give enough information for
>non-English
>speaking people. "Enough information" should include not only official
>ICANN
>announces and documents but also various opinions and discussion from
>all
>over the world. It seems very difficult to realize in short time. But
>ICANN
>should make effort for this as possible as they can. ICANN should not be
>a
>quitter.
>
>3-2 Education
>ICANN issues are not belong to technical specialists even if it contains
>"technical management" because another important mission of ICANN is
>"policy
>development" based on democracy and transparent procedure by various
>Internet communities including civil society groups. The policy making
>of
>ICANN should be possible by ordinary users who has not so much
>professional
>technical knowledge but should have a proper knowledge about what the
>democratic policy making of the Internet governance is and what the
>rights
>of users are. ICANN should educate the users from above point of view on
>whom democracy of the Internet governance is be based.
>
>3-3 Important role of civil society
>3-3-1 Civil society NGOs
>I feel responsibility as an activist of NGOs in Japan for above top-down
>election issues in Japan because we could not take an action as enough
>as we
>could because of lack of our experiences about ICANN issues. I think we
>have
>to do a lot of things for promoting more democratic procedure in not
>only
>global but also local level.
>Activities of NGOs do not belong to ICANN directly, but they may be
>included
>into a kind of user communities. Internet users of civil society
>oriented
>NGOs can have a very important position for promoting above missions
>from
>outside of ICANN organization.
>
>
>3-3-2 Outreach to individual users beyond professional NGOs
>Population of the Internet users increases rapidly. The Internet does
>not
>belong to specialists of computer technology and communication any more.
>Though the role of NGOs is still very important, NGOs cannot catch up
>with
>rapid growth of the Internet. The scheme that NGOs as civil society
>representatives lobby to International organizations will become not so
>effective as before. On the other hand, individual users will become to
>have
>a responsibility for the Internet governance directly. ICANN At Large
>election in 2000 was very useful and important experiences for more
>direct
>participation based on individual users.
>
>Therefore At Large election should be direct participation by individual
>users. Internet users will not need any assistance for policy making of
>the
>Internet in near future. The idea that any intermediate organization
>represents At Large members and At Large board members should be elected
>by
>the intermediate organization must be recognized completely as unclear,
>opaque and exclusive procedure for users. Each NGO as activists
>collective
>or specialists for technology and politics will become the civil society
>organization which has limited missions and interests. They may become
>not a
>legitimate representative for At Large members but just a navigator with
>various directions within the civil society.
>
>
>3-4 Democratic procedure for the Internet governance in local
>organizations
>Top-down campaign might end in failure if local Internet governance
>organization had a democratic body and civil society groups had more
>concerning the Internet governance issues in local level. ICANN issues
>are
>also applicable to local governance organization such as JPNIC. If so,
>we
>should approach democratization both of ICANN itself and local
>organization.
>
>
>4 Conclusion
>I know that there is an opinion that the At Large election should be
>restricted more in oder to avoid top-down/nationalistic election. I
>think
>this opinion does not stem from civil society groups, rather this is a
>kind
>of conspiracy pretending democracy. The necessary measures exist in the
>contrary direction. I believe we can promote more bottom-up and more
>civil
>society oriented At Large election process if ICANN has proper measures
>and
>were so minded.
>Individual users in the Internet including Japanese people are not
>absolutely stupid, rather the information system of ICANN makes
>individual
>users ignoramus. Therefore people should not accept the responsibility
>but
>the one who insists on more restricted election without any effort or
>the
>one who completely disregards the interest of global Internet community
>and
>intend to introduce national or business interest should take
>responsibility
>for top-down/nationalistic election process.