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

[James Love]

This was a pretty interesting note.   I think the proposal for a
decentralized at large is appealing.  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: <forum@atlargestudy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing
Committee


>
> 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
>
>
>