Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Internet @large Members,
We are closing on serious matters now with the ITU/T letter and Esther 
Dyson's evaluation.
BTW, who is the ITU/T Member of the BoD?

On 08:49 17/04/02, Esther Dyson said:
>>Come up with something that most of the parties can agree/compromise on, 
>>and all of us can live with it.  That structure should meet the existing 
>>tests of representing a diversity of views and interests, including 
>>geographic diversity, it should fulfill the various other requirements of 
>>the MoU, and it should consist of members from the private 
>>(non-government) sector.

This is probably not acceptable to the Govs as such. The ITU/T proposition 
therefore seems positive IF  we can design a mechanism which makes sure 
that the spirit of your request is carved in the building stones to the 
point that the system falls apart if it is not respected. I think we can do 
that.

>>  ICANN should reach out to the ccTLDs not by asking them to sign a 
>> contract of fealty to ICANN, but rather by asking them to join ICANN in 
>> order to participate in setting a minimum level of policies that they 
>> will agree to implement themselves.

Absolutely true.

>>ICANN and its community (mostly) are trying very hard to limit their 
>>efforts to the *non*-political issues of the Net's technical 
>>infrastructure. It's inevitable that there is some overlap, but it need 
>>not be great. The fact that ICANN has very limited powers and is not a 
>>treaty organization helps to maintain that distinction, because ICANN 
>>simply has no authority to meddle in/decide the non-technical issues.

I disagree with this. But it depends on what you name political or not 
political. The Internet is a medium for the people to talk together. Like 
air. If the air density decreases we do not hear each other well. ICANN's 
management decreases the air density. Air pressure management is technical; 
yet people wanting the air pressure to be restored and telling how is 
political. IMHO the problem is not that much about what is technical or 
not, but what is in the ICANN's territory. Air pressure in an other room, 
or light in this room is territory creep.  As you noted above, ICANN's room 
is not the ccTLD's room. Yet  there are ways to better maintain air density 
in both rooms together.

>>Hence the big discussions about ICANN's supposed  "mission creep." As 
>>long as ICANN keeps to its by-consensus, by-contract architecture, that 
>>mission creep is almost impossible.  But the moment it became part of, 
>>say, the ITU (or remained with the USG), it *would* have such 
>>authority/powers and would inevitably be drawn into conflicts it should avoid.

True. if it was "part of". Not, if it was hosted by the ITU/T in such a way 
ITU/T could only help and structurally not interfere. see below. This means 
the ITU/T *joining* in an ITU/T hosted structure, not controling.

>>Those conflicts won't go away, and perhaps those issues do belong with 
>>the ITU.  But ICANN's current formulation will help it to stay clear of them.

I read you. But unfortunately we have to get real. It is either to compose 
with the ITU/T or to rebuild another ITU/T (what has been partly done with 
the GAC). Best is to equally join forces with others, so no one can lead.

>>THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP

<snip>

I am afraid the harm has been done by the ALSC. The ALSC proposed a 
centraly structured @large system. And you continue with the 
icannatlarge.com effort. Unless there is a structural limitation, this will 
fail for the very reasons that you give against the ITU/T. The Board 
responded with the local @large communities. This is the only solution.

The Internet is a distributed system. Everything which is not distributed 
enough will harm it. Either you distribute it or you reduce your claim of 
representativity. This is what the ALSC did BTW: the considered @large are 
only the gTLD registrants: that was consistent.

>>Therefore:
>>
>>1 - Please support the creation of an At-Large Organizing Committee *now*,

amen. But that will become just another committee without real support if 
you claim to represent everyone.

>>2 - Please support the activities of the ALOC as a meaningful step 
>>towards a useful, constructive At-Large Membership.

amen.

>>The ALOC should foster efforts of AL Members to organize themselves and 
>>participate in ICANN's decision-making constructively, with a focus not 
>>just on ICANN's own governance,

This is a "bottom down" approach. This is already a progress.
What the BoD has called for is a bottom-bottom-up approach.

1. let define what is ICANN territory.
2. let the appropriate @large local chapters organize and once for all 
accept that the @large are the people sharing into the gouvernance.
3. let permit the ICANN Network partners define themselves and organize 
(ccTLDs, Newnet, Open Roots, etc..)
4. let use the ITU/T has a "virtual country" where to settle these partners 
secretariat

The ICANN is not that much making a poor job, it tries to make everyone's 
job. Before asking the USG to remove its control from the ICANN or to step 
in, let see what is under real control of the USG and what is delegated to 
the ICANN. Also let understand who is who in the structures.

1. the Internet systems are not telephone systems. The Internet is not 
owned by the ICANN, it is co-owned by all the participants. Most are 
represented - not only appropriately - Telcos, ISPs, Registries and 
Registrars, but not the Registrants and not the Users. This means that most 
probably 80% of the hardware, software and brainware investment is not 
represented. Here is the first problem.

2. the second problem is that these 80% co-owners are like every small 
shares holder. They want it to work but they do not care about day to day 
life. Just when they are upset. So we must have them organized, but not by 
the ICANN: by themselves. Consumer organizations, @large organizations, 
etc.. And let stop talking about voting representativity, what we need is 
concern representativity.

3. the third problem is for evertone to understand that one does not 
control a distributed system. On can only serve and catalyse it. Who wants 
to control it centraly hurts it and will be circumvented (you do not stop 
the tide). Who truely wants to control it has to serve it well first.

3. the forth problem is a problem of territory. The ICANN network is NOT 
the whole world and multi-porject and multi-technology and multi-country 
and mumti-culture and eternal system. The ICANN manages the Jon Postel 
sub-network, not the universal network of the universe. This is fact. I 
have no objection to an ICANN trying to do more, but if we need first to 
get real.

The ICANN today "controls" : .com, .net, .org (?), .int, .arpa, and the .7 
others.
the USG today controls .mil, .edu, .gov, .us
the ccTLDs are a group of diversified appraoches
New.net controls the Newnet system
the Open Roots control the Open Systems
the ITU/T controls the Telephone and the Data Networks
the TV and Radio systems are also by their own
as will be the Wi-Fi
EDIFACT may have its say and many others like ISSN, ISBN, WTO etc.. etc...

When we accept that we have the solution:

- ICANN + SOs (and ICANN @large as proposed by Esther and implemented by 
Joop) are OK
- ccNETs + their local @large communities -  including their Gov the way 
they want - are OK
- the New.net and Open Roots communities - including international projects 
and cultures the way they want - are OK
- the ITU/T has its own system and brings it on the table
- the other network naming and numbering systems can join and bring their 
inputs

Their number, size, diversity, histiory etc will be their common protection 
against any power creep.

So what I propose is simple;

1. the creation of an open International Concertation Committee on Naming 
and Numbering Plans by the ITU/T - ywe sections : one on naming (brainware) 
and one on numbering (hardware).
2. the proposition of an ITU/T sponsored status to all the Naming and 
Numbering Plan Administrators in order to address the legal aspects.
3. the ICANN if they want, the ITU/T if they propose, to assume the 
secretariat of the Committee.
4. a rotating Chair for the Committee. The one guesting the next bi-yearly 
meeting.

That way no one can be under the control of anyone.
Then each proceeds from this, on his the best interest, towards concerted 
development.

1. the ICANN is certainly a key element to the US commerce, industry, 
economy and security as co-managing the USG root. I suggest that this is 
seriously considered and organized to have the ICANN properly funded and 
supported by the USG. That according to the US culture, laws and usages it 
is properly rebuild. Most probably in a way respecting a democratic 
approach. IMHO this should result into an USG root system deployed on the 
US soil and under Pentagon control in case of war crisis.

2. The ccTLDs are certainly key elements to their country's commerce, 
industry, economy and  security as co-managing a part of their county's 
naming space, as will do other national, open or local TLD managers in a 
near future. I suggest that this is seriously considered by national laws 
to protect and regulate their activities according to their national 
cultures, laws and usages. Including the building of a parallel natinal or 
regional root system under national security and policy control. So no 
national communication can be controled by foreign operators and national 
internal relations be destabilized by foreign decisions. Such root systems 
will concert and should rely on the USG root.

3. The Open Systems (existng or to come) administrators represent the rest 
of the market.  They are the free entreprises, the NGO, innovate technical; 
social, cultural experiences. They must be backed by the ICANN and the 
ccTLDs, fosterng the international and their national communities. Their 
participation into the ITU/T process makes sure that neither the ICANN nor 
the ccTLDs will ever fail under the "control" of the ITU/T. As a private 
company (Tymnet) I have shared into the UN (IBI) and ITU/T (CCITT III/VII) 
at the time of the monopolies (we interconnected together). I can testifiy 
that our limitations came far moe from being a part of the US State 
Department delegation than from the CCITT itself.

My 2 euro cents.
Jefsey Morfin